Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 July, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121552
Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22886 of 2025
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhlendra Pratap Singh,Deleep Kumar Chaudhari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 22.12.2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge/Fast Track Court, District Ghaziabad, along with the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 62754 of 2024, titled as State v. Ravi Kumar and others, arising from Case Crime No. 177 of 2023, under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, registered at Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad.
3. The prosecution's case is that, acting on secret information, on 24.05.2023, ACP Sahibabad/Special Police Officer, raided Pacific Mall, Ghaziabad and found individuals engaged in prostitution. Women were allegedly enticed into prostitution, and the applicant was found in a compromising position inside the spa. The police seized aphrodisiac substances, and based on these allegations, the impugned FIR was registered against the spa's owner and the applicant. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed, and the Magistrate took cognizance. Aggrieved by the cognizance order, the applicant has approached this court seeking the quashing of the proceedings.
4. The applicant's counsel primarily argues that the applicant was neither the owner of the spa nor involved in enticing women into prostitution. At most, the applicant was a consumer who had paid for services and was found engaged in consensual intimacy with one of the women at the spa. He submits that no specific allegations against the applicant attract the ingredients of Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
5. Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, is reproduced below:
"5. Procuring, inducing or taking woman or girl for the sake of prostitution.
(1) Any person who-
(a) procures or attempts to procure a woman or girl, whether with or without her consent, for the purpose of prostitution; or
(b) induces a woman or girl to go from any place, with the intent that she may for the purpose of prostitution become the inmate of, or frequent, a brothel; or
(c) takes or attempts to take a woman or girl, or causes a woman or girl to be taken, from one place to another with a view to her carrying on, or being brought up to carry on prostitution; or
(d) causes or induces a woman or girl to carry on prostitution;[shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than two years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and if any offence under this sub-section is committed against the will of any person, the punishment of imprisonment for a term of seven years shall extend to imprisonment for a term of fourteen years.
Provided that if the person in respect of whom an offence committed under this sub-section,- (i) is a child, the punishment provided under this sub-section shall extend to rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years but may extend to life; and (ii) is a minor, the punishment provided under this sub-section shall extend to rigourous imprisonment for a term not less than seven years and not more than fourteen years];
(3) An offence under this section shall be triable-
(a) in the place from which a woman or girl is procured, induced to go, taken or caused to be taken or from which an attempt to procure or take such woman or girl is made; or
(b) in the place to which she may have gone as a result of the inducement or to which she is taken or caused to be taken or an attempt to take her is made."
6. The applicant's counsel relies on the judgment dated 22.02.2024, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Application u/s 482 No. 9161 of 2023, to argue that the applicant's case does not fall within the definitions under the Act, nor do the ingredients of Section 5 attracts to the applicant. He argues that the coordinate Bench of this Court and various High Courts have consistently ruled that the definitions of "prostitution" and the ingredients of Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as well as Section 8, do not apply to customers. Learned counsel also relied upon judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application u/s 482 no. 26945 of 2024 (Ankur Kumar @ Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on 1.10.2024 and applicant seeks parity with same.
7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. opposes these arguments, stating that the applicant was found at the place of incident, arrested on the spot, and was engaged in an intimate act with one of the women and based on her statement, the applicant was implicated in the FIR.
8. After considering the arguments of both parties, the record, and particularly the judgment cited by the applicant's counsel, along with the consistent rulings of other High Courts, it is observed that even if the applicant's alleged involvement are taken as true, the provisions of Section 5 of the Act cannot be applied to him as a customer. It's prosecution's case that the applicant was involved consensually with one of the women at the spa, having paid for the services. Therefore, the proceedings against the applicant are unsustainable in law. Applicant's case is squarely covered with judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ankur Kumar @ Ankur Chaudhary (supra).
9. Based on aforesaid deliberations, the impugned charge sheet dated 22.12.2023, the cognizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge/Fast Track Court, District Ghaziabad, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 62754 of 2024, titled as State v. Ravi Kumar and others, arising from Case Crime No. 177 of 2023, under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, registered at Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed only in respect of applicant namely Rajesh Kumar.
10. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2025
Shaswat
