1 apl1371.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1371 OF 2023 Pranay Vinod Ghudhde Aged about 23 years, Occ: Student R/o Isapur, Tah. Saoner, Dist. Nagpur. ....APPLICANT ...V E R S U S... State of Maharashtra Through PSO, P.S. Saoner, Nagpur. ...NON-APPLICANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.S. Band, Advocate for applicant. Shri M.J. Khan, APP for non-applicant no.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. RESERVED ON :- 29.08.2026 PRONOUNCED ON :- 12.10.2026 JUDGMENT: 1. Admit. 2. The applicant seeks quashing of First Information Report bearing Crime No.707/2023 dated 07.08.2023 registered with Police Station, Saoner, District Nagpur (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(a), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act of 2026:BHC-NAG:13760-DB 2 apl1371.23.odt 1956”) as well as Charge-sheet No.225/2026 arising out of the same FIR. 3. The charge-sheet indicates that on receipt of secret information regarding immoral activities punishable under the provisions of the Act of 1956, a raid was conducted at Welcome Lodge, Saoner where two victim girls indulged in the activities of prostitution were rescued from room Nos.102 and 103. The allegation against the applicant is that he was seen running away from room No.103 in half-naked condition. Therefore, an FIR came to be registered, which culminated into filing of the charge- sheet. The applicant was then arrayed as one of the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no material to show that the applicant has committed the offence punishable under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act of 1956 and that he went there and indulged in the activities of prostitution. According to him, even if it is presumed that the applicant went there to avail services from the victim girls, the same does not constitute any alleged offence under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act of 1956. None of the allegations of running a brothel or living on the income of prostitution are attributed to the present applicant. 3 apl1371.23.odt Therefore, he urged that no case whatsoever is made out against the present applicant. In support of his argument, he relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.564/2018 – Eimn Abdulamir Vs. State of Maharashtra with Criminal Application No.1081/2018 – Shashank Yashdeep Khanna Vs. the State of Maharashtra with Criminal Application No.1039/2018 – Derek Elias Machado and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (Aurangabad Bench) dated 01.11.2018 as well as Mahesh Vinayak Patil V. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Revision Application No.347/2023 dated 03.01.2024), (Principal Seat). 5. Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that the applicant was found in the brothel in half-naked condition. He was indulged in prostitution at the relevant time and therefore, a triable case is made out against him. Hence, he sought rejection of the application. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it can be observed that except from the fact that the applicant was seen running away from one of the rooms of the said brothel when the raid was conducted, no other 4 apl1371.23.odt incriminating material has been gathered against him during the course of investigation. Thus, there are no allegations against the applicant of running a brothel for the purpose of prostitution. Similarly, there are no allegations that the applicant was a tenant, lessee, occupier or person in-charge of any premises and was knowingly allowing such premises to be used as brothel. Therefore, 3(2)(a) of the Act of 1956 is also not alleged against the applicant. 7. If the allegations in the charge-sheet are accepted, then it is revealed that the applicant had been to the brothel to avail the services of the victim girls. Thus, what appears from the entire charge-sheet is that he merely went to the said brothel as a customer. Relying on this, the prosecution is alleging that the applicant has committed the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act of 1956. For ready reference, Section 5 is reproduced here: “5. Procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution. (1) Any person who – (a)procures or attempts to procure a person, whether with or without his consent, for the purpose of prostitution ;or (b) ……. 5 apl1371.23.odt (c) takes or attempts to take a person, or causes a person to be taken, from one place to another with a view to his carrying on, or being brought up to carry on prostitution; or (d) causes or induces a person to carry on prostitution; shall be punishable on conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than three years and not more than seven years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and if any offence under this sub-section is committed against the will of any person, the punishment of imprisonment for a term of seven years shall extend to imprisonment for a term of fourteen years;” 8. Thus, in the present case, there is no material in the entire charge-sheet to show that the applicant procured, attempted to procure any person for the purpose of prostitution or took, attempted to take, caused a person to be taken from one place to another or caused or induced a person to carry on prostitution. Section 5 of the Act of 1956 punishes the persons who are responsible to throw victims into flesh trade, either by force or by inducement. Here, the allegation against the applicant is that he had solicited sexual intercourse from the victim girl merely as a customer who had come to satisfy his personal lust and not for the purpose of prostitution, which requires commercial exploitation as defined under the Act of 1956. Even otherwise, there is no evidence in the entire charge-sheet to show that the 6 apl1371.23.odt applicant had paid any amount to the manager for the said act. The applicant was traced only after the raiding party arrived there. 9. In this regard, a reference can be made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Eimn Abdulamir (supra) wherein this Court in similar set of facts, has quashed the FIR against a customer. The relevant portion reads thus: “17. ………. Now, Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act prescribes that if person has caused or induced a person to carry on prostitution, then such person would be liable for punishment. Two main ingredients are necessary for a case to be covered under this provision. They are 'causing' or 'inducing'. Word 'Cause' has not been defined in PITA Act. The dictionary meaning of word 'cause' means ‘A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.' In law, the term carries different meaning taking into consideration different references. e.g. Good cause, reasonable cause, cause of action etc. Now we are required to see in what context the said word is used in this section. Taking into consideration the object of the Act, it can be said that the said word is used with a sense that those persons who are responsible to throw the victim in the flesh trade should be punished. Further there is element of use of force attached to the said meaning. Same is the case with the word 'induced'. Both these word 7 apl1371.23.odt connote that accused should not have left victim and created such situation that she would not have any option than to go into the flesh trade. Here the allegations against the petitioner are that he had solicited sexual intercourse from the girl. As per the prosecution story the girls were already into the said business. There is no evidence in the form of statement of any person that present petitioner had paid specified amount to the Manager for the act. As per the prosecution story, petitioner was found in half naked condition in a room. In fact, the dummy customer would not have any occasion to see where present petitioner was before he gave signal. His statement also does not disclose that he had peeped in another room also, before giving signal, to see what is going on in that room. The position of petitioner was allegedly traced only after raiding party arrived. That means except the fact that petitioner was found in a room, there is nothing in the entire charge-sheet. Only on the basis of such statement, how it can be said that he had 'caused' or 'induced' any girl to take up prostitution? At the cost of repetition, it can be said that there is no evidence on record to show that petitioner had paid the prescribed fee or charges at the counter before entering in the room. The person who had allegedly accepted the amount is an accused in this case. Therefore, even if he would have made a statement to that effect, it is inadmissible. Therefore, the case does not even fall under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act.” 10. Thus, except the fact that the applicant was seen running away from the said brothel in half-naked condition, there 8 apl1371.23.odt is no other incriminating material against him. In view of the above, no offence whatsoever under the provisions Section 5 of the Act of 1956 is made out against the applicant. Hence, a case is made out for quashing the FIR as well as the consequent charge- sheet. 11. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) The criminal application is allowed. (ii) First Information Report bearing Crime No.707/2023 dated 07.08.2023 registered with Police Station, Saoner, District Nagpur (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(a), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 as well as Charge-sheet No.225/2026 arising out of the same FIR are hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicant. (iii) The application stands disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Wagh Signed by: Mr. S.R. Wagh Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/10/2026 18:48:06