[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Dharmik Kiranbhai Lakhani vs State Of Gujarat on 18 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1486/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 1486 of 2026
==========================================================
DHARMIK KIRANBHAI LAKHANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEET V JANI(13101) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. KUSH S PATEL(17333) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MAHETA, LD.ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 18/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of filing the present application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant-
accused has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being
CR No. A- 11210065241003 of 2024 registered with the
Utran Police Station, Surat, for the offences punishable
under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act, 1956; under Sections 144(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and under Sections 14(A), 14(C) of the
Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004, as well as the charge
sheet and the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.80 of
2025 pending before the learned JMFC, Muni. Court, Surat.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Manan
Maheta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the
respondent-State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1486/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
3. It is the case of the present applicant that he was
merely a customer and was arrested pursuant to the raid
carried out by the Police. The case of the prosecution is that
upon receiving the secret information, the police had raided
the Hotels and the applicant was caught red handed, for
which the impugned FIR was registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 and under Sections 144(2), 61(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections
14(A), 14(C) of the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Meet Jani appearing for the
applicant has submitted that the applicant was merely a
customer and he had not procured or attempted to procure
any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution. Relying
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vishal
Bhikhabhai Chavda Vs. State of Gujarat [2025 (o) AIJEL
HC 252088, learned advocate has submitted that the case
on hand is squarely covered. The relevant paragraph of the
judgment read thus :
"12. Ld. counsel Mr. Anandjiwala has drawn attention
of this Court on the observations made by this Court in
para- 26 of the decision in the case of State of Gujarat v.
Bai Radha, w/o Natvarlal Ramshankar & Another (9
GLR 261). It would be beneficial to quote the relevant
para-26 which is as under :-
"26. Sec.5(1)(a) provides that any person who
procures or attempts to procure a woman or girl,
whether with or without her consent, for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1486/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
purpose of prostitution, that person shall be
punished as provided therein. In this respect also
Mr.Nanavati's contention was that accused No.3
can be said to have procured a woman such as
Bai Kanta for the purposes of prostitution to
Kishan and that, therefore, he can be held liable
for the offence under Section5(1)(a) of the Act. The
word "procure" is not defined under the Act,but we
were referred to its dictionary meaning which says
"To bring about by care or pains; also (more
vaguely) to bring about, cause, effect, produce; to
obtain by care or effort; to acquire; to obtain
(women) for the gratification of lust; to prevail
upon, induce, persuade (a person) to do
something." Giving the normal meaning to the use
of the word "procure" in clause (a) of sub- section
(1) of Section 5, what is required is only that he
must have obtained a woman or a girl for the
purpose of prostitution for a particular individual."
Mr. Anandjiwala has placed emphasis on words
"obtain a woman or a girl for the purpose of
prostitution for a particular individual" and it is
argued that from these observations made, it is
sufficiently clear that Section 5(i) (a) of the Act
would not be attracted at all in the present case so
far as the present petitioner is concerned.
13. The petitioner is also charged with the offence under
Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act makes the
prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places an
offence. Firstly, the prostitution in itself is not an offence
under the Act, save in the manner given in Sections 7
and 8. Firstly, the petitioner by any stretch of
imagination cannot be charged with this offence under
Section 7 of the Act because to attract the said section,
the prosecution must prima facie show that the
petitioner is carrying on prostitution. It is only when the
first ingredient is satisfied then the question would be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1486/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
as to whether the prostitution is being carried out in or
in the vicinity of public place. When Section 3 of the Act
is not applicable, when Section 4 of the Act is not
applicable to the present petitioner, there is no question
of charging the accused with the offence punishable
under Section 7 of the Act. When no formal raid was
carried out at Hotel Taj Residency Umed and no part of
the premises of the said hotel was found in actual use
of such illegal activities, it would not be legal to continue
the prosecution against the petitioner for using the
public place for the activities of prostitution."""
5. Learned advocate for the applicant has further
submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order
dated 15.12.2023 passed in the case of Jojo Thomas
Kannappilly Vs. State of Gujarat, rendered in Criminal
Misc.Application No. 7387 of 2023, has also taken a
similar view relying upon the judgment of this Court in the
Case of Umedsinh P. Chamapavat Vs. State of Gujarat
[2006 (2)) GLH 736.
6. Learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta appearing for the
respondent-State could not dispute the aforesaid fact that
the applicant has been arraigned as a customer, and in
similar set of facts, this Court had quashed the complaint.
Therefore, though he has opposed the application, he
however, submitted that appropriate orders may be passed.
7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
since the issue is squarely covered, I am of the opinion that
the present application deserves consideration.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1486/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
8. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The impugned
FIR being CR No. A- 11210065241003 of 2024 registered
with the Utran Police Station, Surat, for the offences
punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956; under Sections 144(2), 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and under Sections 14(A),
14(C) of the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004, as well as
the charge sheet and the proceedings of Criminal Case
No.80 of 2025 pending before the learned JMFC, Muni.
Court, Surat, so also all other consequential proceedings
arising pursuant thereto qua the applicant-accused, are
hereby quashed and set aside.
Direct service is permitted.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J)
DIPTI PATEL
