[2025:RJ-JP:40512] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5675/2019 Parasmal Jain, R/o 8, Vali Garden, M.D. Road, Thana Moti Doongri, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Misha Sharma on behalf of Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/10/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged F.I.R. No.429/2015 registered on 13.08.2015 at Police Station-Mansarovar, Jaipur (East/South) for committing offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956'). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that bare reading of the FIR would make it clear that the allegation against the petitioner is confined to the fact that he was a customer in a brothel house and there are no allegations whatsoever with regard to abusing or exploiting any woman for illegal trafficking. 3. It was further submitted that although after lodging an FIR, the charge-sheet was filed and even charges were framed, yet the charges are again under the aforesaid provisions which are [2025:RJ-JP:40512] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5675/2019] not at all applicable in the instant case and if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value even then no offence under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Act of 1956 whatsoever are made out against the petitioner. 4. In order to support her contention that the customer merely visiting the brothel house cannot be implicated under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Act of 1956, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Akshay Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.10079/2022) decided on 22.04.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as the judgments of Vijaykumar Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2016 (1) KHC 698, Sri Sanaulla Vs. State of Karnataka (Writ Petition No.54250/2017), Vinod @ Vijay Bhagubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Guj 446, Z. Lourdiah Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2013 SCC OnLine AP 1197, Goenka Sajan Kumar Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 1192, Shashank Priyardarshi Vs. State of U.P & Anr. passed by the Allahabad High Court on 10.03.2025 in Application Under Section 482 No.2210/2015. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal miscellaneous petition and submitted that at the stage where after framing charge, the trial is proceeding further and the statements of prosecution witnesses are being recorded, no interference is called for in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard and considered. [2025:RJ-JP:40512] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5675/2019] 7. Bare perusal of FIR would reveal that the sole allegation against the petitioner was that he was present in the brothel house in order to satisfy his lust and no allegation whatsoever has been levelled that he was either abusing or exploiting any woman for the purpose of illegal trafficking. 8. It is settled that although jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised sparingly, yet there is no prohibition for not making interference where from bare perusal of the FIR/Complaint, no allegation of committing cognizable offences are made out. 9. This Court also examined the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Act of 1956 and finds that under none of the aforesaid provision, the customer present in the brothel house can be implicated for committing offences of immoral trafficking. 10. In the case of Akshay Jain (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the judgments of other High Courts as well as provisions of the Act of 1956 has held as under: "The facts of the present case are almost identical with the facts of the above-referred case of Allahabad High Court. In the instant case, it has been alleged in the chargesheet that the petitioner was present in the house in question (brothel) simply as a costumer to fulfill his lust and there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was indulged with any other accused persons in the business of prostitution. In these circumstances, I am in full agreement with the observation passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the afore- quoted case. It also appears from the record that before initiating criminal proceedings, by passing order taking cognizance dated 02.11.2016 against the petitioner, judicial mind has not been applied by the learned trial Magistrate. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 02.11.2016 and all other [2025:RJ-JP:40512] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5675/2019] criminal proceedings of Cr. Regular Case No.342/18 arising out of FIR No.479/2015 PS Sadar stand quashed and set aside qua the accused petitioner. However, proceedings would go on against the remaining accused persons." 11. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussions and more particularly where language of the provisions would make it abundantly clear that the customer cannot be implicated for committing offences under the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1956 either for seducing or soliciting for the purpose of immoral trafficking or even for inducing for taking any person for prostitution, this Court finds that it is a fit case where inherent power of this Court can be exercised. Merely, the fact that the trial has proceeded further in respect of an FIR, which does not reveal any cognizable offence against the petitioner, this Court cannot be divested of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, which is being faced by the person on account of vexatious and frivolous trial. 12. Hence, under these circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed and F.I.R. No.429/2015 registered on 13.08.2015 at Police Station- Man Sarover, Jaipur (East/South) and all the further proceedings conducted in the trial in respect of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/7