Allahabad High Court
Ritesh Pratap And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:153415
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32946 of 2025
Ritesh Pratap And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ajay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and 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 summoning/cognizance order dated 18.12.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 49452 of 2019 titled State of U.P. v. Mohit and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 2151 of 2019, under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, registered at Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad.
3. The prosecution's case is that, acting on secret information, on 06.10.2019, opposite party no.2/concerned ASP raided Rajhans Building, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad and found individuals engaged in prostitution. Women were allegedly enticed into prostitution, and the applicants were found in a compromising position with a female inside the spa. Based on these allegations, the impugned FIR was registered against the spa's owner and the other co-accused persons including applicants. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed, and the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and the applicants aggrieved by the cognizance order, have approached this court seeking the quashing of the proceedings.
4. The applicant's counsel primarily argues that the applicants were neither the owner of the spa nor involved in enticing women into prostitution. At most, the applicants were 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 applicants attract the ingredients of Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
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 12.3.2025, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 8170 of 2025 (Vipul Kohli vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), 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 role assigned to the applicants and he sought parity with the said judgment. 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.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposes these arguments, stating that the applicants were found at the place of incident, arrested on the spot, and was found engaged in an intimate act with one of the women and based on her statement, the applicant was implicated in the FIR.
8. Issues involved in the instant case have already been decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.02.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 9161 of 2023 (Dinesh Tiwari @ Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Another) as well as by this Court vide judgment dated 29.08.2025 passed in Application u/s 528 BNSS no. 28825 of 2025 (Vaibhav Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and another).
9. Considering the aforesaid undisputed position, in the light of judgment of Dinesh tiwari (supra), Vaibhav Srivastava (supra) and Vipul Kohli (supra), this Court holds that no case u/s 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 of the Act, 1956 is made out against the present applicants. Therefore, the entire proceedings of Case No. 49452 of 2019 titled State of U.P. v. Mohit and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 2151 of 2019, under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, registered at Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad are hereby quashed only in respect of applicants namely Ritesh Pratap and Lalit Yadav.
10. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 1, 2025
Shaswat
