Accused Should Have Induced Woman To Carry On Prostitution To Attract Offence: Kerala High Court Quashes Immoral Traffic Act Proceedings Against Customer

The petition before the High Court was filed by an accused booked in a case registered under Sections 3(1), 3(2)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, seeking quashing of all proceedings against him.

The Single Bench of Justice C. Pratheep Kumar held, “Therefore in order to attract the offence under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, a person should procure, induce or take persons for the purpose of prostitution. In order to attract the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act, a person should cause or induce a woman or girl to carry on prostitution.”

Advocate Baby Thomas represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Anima represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the first and second accused persons, with the intention to make earnings by running a brothel, took on rent a two-storied building at Gandhi Nagar and were conducting a brothel therein. The third accused came there after paying consideration online and used the service of one of the ladies kept there for his sexual needs. This is how they were alleged to have committed the offence in question. The fourth accused had approached the High Court on the ground that he was only a customer, and as such, the offences in the FIR did not lie against him. Thus, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

Reasoning

Referring to the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the Bench stated that to attract the offence under Section 5(1)(a), a person should procure, induce or take persons for the purpose of prostitution. “In order to attract the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act, a person should cause or induce a woman or girl to carry on prostitution”, it added.

The Bench noted that as per the prosecution's case the women were kept in the brothel by the first and second accused persons and they were not brought by the petitioner. “The prosecution also has no case that the petitioner caused or induced the women to carry on prostitution. Therefore, the allegations raised against the petitioner do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act”, it stated.

The Bench further explained that to attract the offence under Section 7 of the Act, prostitution is to be carried out in the vicinity of a public place. The Bench took note of the fact that the prosecution had no case that the alleged place of the incident was a notified area. It was contended that there is a Cross Chapel within a distance of 50 metres from the place of occurrence, but the Bench found that this is not a place where ceremonies such as the holy mass or service are carried out so as to be called a public religious worship. “Therefore, in the facts of this case the offence under Section 7 of the Act is also not attracted. In the above circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner and as such, all further proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed”, it held.

Cause Title: Vishnu P.V. v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:14343)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Baby Thomas, K.K. Mohandas, Mariamma Joseph, Biju George, Indrajith S Kaimal, Alberthove Francis M.G. Ehlas Haleema C.K., Alicia Jose, Johny George

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Anima

Click here to read/download Order