The applicant was caught during a raid, but caught as a customer, and that, the Gujarat High Court held, made all the difference to the charge. Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act punish those who keep a brothel, procure a person for prostitution, carry on prostitution near a public place, or use a position of authority to abet the seduction of a woman or girl. None of them, the Court held, is aimed at the client. Reading each provision against the applicant’s role, the Court found no offence made out and quashed the FIR against him.
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR registered under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code against a man who had been arraigned as a customer in a brothel raid, holding that the offences under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act are directed at brothel-keepers, procurers and those who abet prostitution from a position of authority, and cannot be invoked against a customer [Kamlesh Hukamchand Vishnoi v. State of Gujarat and Another].
Justice P.M. Raval, exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowed the application and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings qua the applicant.
The case
The FIR, lodged in January 2010 following a raid at a hotel in Ahmedabad, alleged that a brothel was being run there. The applicant was among those apprehended during the raid, and the investigation, culminating in a charge-sheet, arraigned him as a customer. He approached the High Court to quash the FIR, contending that, on the settled position, none of the offences alleged under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act could be made out against a customer, the investigating agency itself having shown him as a customer at the time of the raid.
Notably, the Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute that the applicant had been arraigned in the charge-sheet as a customer, or that, on the settled principle, a customer cannot be visited with the offences under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act.
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court: Brothel Customers Not Liable Under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act
A section-by-section reading
Relying on decisions of coordinate benches in Vishal Bhikhabhai Chavda v. State of Gujarat and Sajjan Kalikant Zha v. State of Gujarat, and finding it undisputed that the applicant was neither the manager of the brothel nor anything other than a customer caught during the raid, the Court examined each provision against his role.
Section 3, it held, punishes the keeping of a brothel or the allowing of premises to be used as one, so that no prosecution under it can be maintained against a customer. Section 5 penalises procuring, or attempting to procure, a person for prostitution, and is thus directed against a procurer, an agent or pimp, not the client, the word “procure” connoting the obtaining of a woman for prostitution from a particular individual, not the act of the individual himself. Section 7, relating to prostitution in or near a public place, could not be attracted either, since the prosecution must first show prima facie that prostitution is being carried on before the question of its location arises. And Section 9, the Court held, applies to a person who, having a position or authority over a woman or girl, causes, aids or abets her seduction for prostitution; there was not an iota of evidence remotely suggesting that the applicant, caught as a client during the raid, had any such position or authority or had abetted any seduction.
The Section 188 charge
On the offence under Section 188 IPC, the Court accepted the submission that no role was attributed to the applicant, and that, in any event, by reason of Section 195 of the CrPC, no cognizance could be taken on a police report, a complaint in writing by the concerned public servant being the required mode. On that footing too, the prosecution of the applicant could not be sustained.
Holding the coordinate-bench decisions to apply squarely to the facts, the Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR, together with all consequential proceedings, insofar as they related to the applicant, making the rule absolute to that extent.
Why it matters
The judgment restates a settled but frequently overlooked feature of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act: the statute is aimed at those who organise, profit from, or exploit prostitution, brothel-keepers, procurers, pimps and those who abet the seduction of women and girls, and not at the client. Each of the provisions the Court examined is defined by a role, keeping a brothel, procuring, carrying on prostitution near a public place, abusing a position of authority, and a customer, by definition, occupies none of them. Where the prosecution’s own material shows the accused to be no more than a client, the ingredients of these offences are simply absent, and the continuance of the prosecution is an abuse of process that the inherent power under Section 482 exists to prevent.
The decision is a study in the disciplined construction of penal provisions. Rather than treat the Act as a general prohibition catching everyone present at a raided premises, the Court read each section for the specific conduct and the specific actor it targets, and measured the applicant’s admitted role against that. That method, insisting that a person can be prosecuted only for an offence whose ingredients his conduct answers, is what led to the conclusion that a customer falls outside Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 altogether. The Section 195 point adds a procedural safeguard familiar to contempt-of-lawful-authority offences under Section 188 IPC, that they require a complaint by the public servant concerned and cannot be prosecuted on a police report.
The ruling should not be read as a comment on the conduct alleged or on the wider policy of the Act; it decides only that these particular offences do not fit a customer. The prosecution of those actually alleged to have kept the brothel or procured the women is unaffected, the quashing operating only qua the present applicant. For the individual, the significance is concrete: a prosecution begun in 2010 and pursued for over a decade on charges that could not, in law, lie against him is brought to an end.
Case Title: Kamlesh Hukamchand Vishnoi v. State of Gujarat and Another [R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 7082 of 2018]
Bench: Justice P.M. Raval, High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Date of Judgment: September 18, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Mohdshafi Shaikh, Kishan Prajapati and Mahesh Poojara for the applicant; Additional Public Prosecutor Rohan N. Shah for the State.
Status: Application allowed. FIR under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 188 IPC, and all consequential proceedings, quashed qua the applicant.