In a noteworthy ruling, the Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a customer implicated under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act of 1956. The court determined that the individual’s role as a customer did not satisfy the criteria for prosecution under the Act, as there was no evidence of involvement in the management or operations of the alleged brothel. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee emphasized that extending criminal liability to mere customers would distort the Act’s intent and undermine judicial fairness.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a December 8, 2019 raid by law enforcement on premises operating as a “family salon and spa” in Bhabanipur, West Bengal. During the raid, the accused customer was allegedly found in a compromising position with a woman. A charge sheet followed under various sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, including Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7.
The defense argued that as a customer, the accused was not responsible for the management or operation of the premises—factors essential for prosecution under the Act. This petition to quash the proceedings was based on the customer’s limited involvement.
Legal Issues Addressed
1. Application of Section 3: Section 3 penalizes those involved in managing or assisting in the management of a brothel. Justice Mukherjee observed that the accused, as a customer, did not fit this provision, with no evidence indicating a managerial role or direct involvement in brothel operations.
2. Applicability of Section 4: Section 4 targets individuals who live off the earnings of prostitution, penalizing those who economically exploit prostitutes. The court found no evidence that the accused had any financial interest or profited from prostitution, ruling out the applicability of Section 4.
3. Interpretation of Section 5: Section 5 pertains to “procuring or inducing” individuals for prostitution. The prosecution argued that “procuring” should include customers, citing similar interpretations in prior rulings. However, Justice Mukherjee disagreed, explaining that “procurement” implies actively recruiting individuals into prostitution. The court ruled that, as a customer, the accused did not engage in such an action.
4. Definition of Section 7 Offense: Section 7 penalizes engaging in prostitution in or near public spaces. For this section to apply, the offense must occur within a specified distance of public areas or in government-notified zones. The court found no evidence that the establishment was located within such zones, rendering Section 7 inapplicable.
Key Observations of the Court
In a critical observation, Justice Mukherjee remarked, “To extend criminal liability to a customer without evidence of involvement in management or procurement risks an abuse of judicial process and deviates from the legislative intent.” The court concluded that such proceedings would unjustly expand the scope of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act beyond its intended purpose.
Justice Mukherjee also noted that enforcing Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 against a customer would violate the principles of due process, given the lack of evidence showing involvement beyond that of a consumer of services. The court underscored that prosecuting customers under these sections would require clear evidence of active participation in trafficking, which was absent in this case.
Court’s Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the criminal proceedings in CGR Case No. 4350 of 2019. Justice Mukherjee concluded by stating, “Continuance of criminal proceedings against a mere customer, without managerial or exploitative involvement, constitutes an abuse of process.” The decision reaffirms the court’s stance that criminal liability under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act must be applied appropriately.
