Is customer in brothel liable for prosecution? HC to examine

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 25

The Punjab and Haryana High Court will examine whether a ‘customer’ in a brothel is liable to be prosecuted. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj of the High Court has already put the state of Haryana and its functionaries on notice and will hear further arguments on the issue later next month.

Quashing sought

The matter was brought to the notice of the High Court after an accused filed a petition through counsel Arpandeep Narula for quashing an FIR registered on January 16 under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act at the DLF police station in Gurugram. Directions were also sought for quashing subsequent proceedings arising from the FIR

Justice Bhardwaj has also called for a status report in the matter from the state by the next date of hearing in the case. The matter was brought to the notice of the High Court after an accused filed a petition through counsel Arpandeep Narula for quashing an FIR registered on January 16 under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act at the DLF police station in Gurugram. Directions were also sought for quashing subsequent proceedings arising from the FIR.

Appearing before Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench, Narula submitted on the petitioner’s behalf that he was being prosecuted for an offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, but the perusal of allegations in the FIR made it clear that the petitioner was merely a customer in a brothel.

Narula added: “Simply being a customer in the brothel does not attract the offence as alleged”. He also relied upon judicial precedent to submit that cognisable offence was not made out against the petitioner. As such, the petitioner’s prosecution in the present FIR was nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

The notice of motion issued by Justice Bhardwaj was accepted on behalf of the respondents by Haryana Deputy Advocate-General BS Virk on the asking of the Court.

The State counsel also vehemently opposed the submissions by the petitioner’s counsel before submitting that the investigation in the case was still at the threshold. It was, as such, premature to jump to any conclusion at the present stage.

The matter will now come up for further hearing in March last week, when the state is expected to address the court on the contentions raised by the petitioner in his plea. The High Court, in the judicial precedent cited by Narula, had held: “Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, states that the prostitution of one’s body is not a crime.” Referring to the facts of the case in hand, the Bench had among other things added there were no allegations against the petitioners to the effect that they were living on the earnings of some other person’s prostitution. The Bench had, resultantly, quashed the FIR registered in December 2014 under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Act at the Shimlapuri police station in Ludhiana.