In a significant legal development, the Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of visiting a brothel as a customer. The Court held that a mere customer cannot be penalized under Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a nearby Cross Chappel without regular religious ceremonies does not constitute a “public religious worship” place under Section 7 of the Act.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar delivered the judgment on February 17, 2026, granting relief to the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Background of the Case
The case stems from Crime No. 416/2025 registered at the Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam. According to the prosecution, the first and second accused rented a two-storied building at Gandhi Nagar with the intention of making earnings by running a brothel.
The petitioner (originally referred to as accused No. 3 in the FIR, now arrayed as accused No. 4), Vishnu P.V, allegedly visited the premises after paying consideration online and utilized the services of one of the women kept there for his sexual needs. The initial FIR was registered under Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash all further proceedings against him.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: The counsel for the petitioner argued that, based on the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was solely a customer. Consequently, the offences outlined in the FIR do not legally stand against him.
Prosecution’s Submissions: The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, submitting that during the investigation, additional sections were revealed and added. These included Sections 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d), and 7(1)(b) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, along with Sections 143(1)(f) and 144(2) read with Section 34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Relying on the coordinate bench decision in Sarath Chandran v. State of Kerala, 2025 (6) KHC 25, the prosecutor argued that Section 5 of the Act was attracted in this case.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar systematically analyzed the applicability of the invoked provisions against the petitioner:
Section 3 (Keeping a brothel): The Court noted that Section 3 of the Act deals exclusively with the punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. The Court concluded that “the above provision does not apply to the petitioner.”
Section 5 (Procuring or inducing for prostitution): Addressing the prosecution’s reliance on Section 5, the Court observed that to attract Sections 5(1)(a) or 5(1)(d), a person must procure, induce, or take persons for the purpose of prostitution, or cause a woman/girl to carry on prostitution. Relying on previous rulings, including Maniraj v. State of Kerala, 2019 (3) KHC 183, the Court noted that Section 5 requires an accused to have induced a person to become an inmate of a brothel. The Court held, “In the instant case, even as per the prosecution case, the women were kept in the brothel by the accused persons 1 and 2 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.”
The Court further relied on Abhijith v. State of Kerala, 2023 KHC 9425, Abdul Hameed P. v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C.8277/2024), and Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2008 (2) KLT 521, reinforcing the settled position that “a customer in a brothel cannot be punished under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act” nor held liable under Section 5.
Section 7 (Prostitution in vicinity of public places): To attract Section 7, prostitution must be carried out in or within 200 meters of a notified public place or a place of public religious worship. The prosecution contended that a Cross Chappel was situated within 50 meters of the occurrence place. Rejecting this argument, the Court observed: “It is not a place where there are any ceremonies like holy mass or service so as to be called as a public religious worship. Therefore, in the facts of this case the offence under Section 7 of the Act is also not attracted.”
Decision
Finding that the allegations did not constitute any offence under the cited provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act against a customer, the Court ruled that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings.
“In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in crime No.416/2025 of Kadavanthra police station stands quashed,” Justice C. Pratheep Kumar concluded.
- Case Title: Vishnu P.V vs. State of Kerala & Anr.
- Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 9565 OF 2025
