- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12816 CRL.P No. 16670 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16670 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MS. NAYANA.D, C/O. MANJUNATHA. C.N, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT. I MAIN, 4TH CROSS, B-BLOCK, NEAR VEENA SHARADA SCHOOL, SHARAVATHI NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA 577 201. &PETITIONER (BY SRI KUMARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION, KUNDAPURA CITY, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SMT. REVATHI, POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION KUNDAPURA CITY, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA.R, HCGP FOR R-1) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12816 CRL.P No. 16670 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.9 IN CC.NO.1397/2013 AND THE ORDERS OF COGNIZANCE TAKEN FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 5 OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT, 1956 AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS ON 13.06.2013, ON THE FILES OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KUNDAPURA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.1397/2013 registered for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). 2. Heard Sri. Kumara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Sowmya R, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner is accused No.9. A crime comes to be registered on a search or a raid conducted in Crime No.16/2013 against several accused for the offence punishable under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12816 CRL.P No. 16670 of 2025 Section 5 of the Act. Accused Nos.7, 8 and 9 were taken into custody on the score that they were indulging themselves in prostitution or were sex workers. The proceedings have gone on since then. 4. It is by now too well settled a principle of law that the victims who were caught at the time of search should not be made accused. This Court, in the case of SWATHI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, has held as follows: "&. &. &. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was being transported for the purpose of engaging her in the business of prostitution is a matter of record. The allegation against the petitioner is one punishable under Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act reads as follows: 5. Procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution.4(1) any person who4 (a) procures or attempts to procure a person, whether with or without his consent, for the purpose of prostitution; or (b) induces a person to go from any place, with the intent that he may for the purpose of prostitution become the inmate of, or frequent, a brothel; or (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 1 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 5539 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12816 CRL.P No. 16670 of 2025 (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: Provided that if the person in respect of whom an offence committed under this subsection,4 (i) is a child, the punishment provided under this sub-section shall extend to rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years but may extend to life; and (ii) is a minor, the punishment provided under this sub-section shall extend to rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and not more than fourteen years; &&& (3) An offence under this section shall be triable4 (a) in the place from which a person is procured, induced to go, taken or caused to be taken or from which an attempt to procure or take such person is made; or (b) in the place to which he may have gone as a result of the inducement or to which he is taken or caused to be taken or an attempt to take him is made.= (Emphasis supplied) Nowhere Section 5 of the Act would indicate that a woman who is a victim of prostitution should be punished for offences punishable under Section 5 of the Act. It clearly indicates that any person who procures or attempts to procure a woman or a girl for the purpose of prostitution would become liable for such prosecution. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12816 CRL.P No. 16670 of 2025 8. The High Court of Bombay in the case of Kajal Mukesh Singh v. The State of Maharashtra1 was interpreting the provisions of the Act and while so doing holds as follows: 27. It is interesting to note the relevant provisions of the said Act, which go to show that the purpose and the object of the Act is not to abolish the prostitution or the prostitute. There is no provision under the law which makes prostitution per se a criminal offence or punishes a person because he indulges in prostitution. What is punishable under the Act is sexual exploitation or abuse of person for commercial purpose and to earn the bread thereby, except where a person is carrying on prostitution in a public place as provided in Section 7 or when a person is found soliciting or seducing another person in view of Section 8 of the said Act. The record does not reveal nor there is a charge against the victims - petitioners that they were indulged in prostitution as defined in Section 2(f) of the said Act. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were seducing any person for the purpose of prostitution nor there is any material to show that they were running a brothel. It seems that the learned Magistrate has been swayed away while passing the impugned order by the fact that the petitioners belong to a particular caste. It is equally important to note that the petitioners victims are major and, therefore, have a right to reside at the place of their choice, to move freely throughout the territory of India and to choose their own vocation as enshrined in Part III of fundamental rights of the Constitution of India. The learned Magistrate, before passing the impugned order ought to have considered the willingness and consent of the victims before ordering their detention in the protective home. The orders impugned dated 19.10.2019 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon and the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi therefore, need to be quashed as the same are bad in law.= (Emphasis supplied) The High Court of Bombay holds that it would become an abuse of the process of law, on the face - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12816 CRL.P No. 16670 of 2025 of it, if the victim is permitted to be prosecuted for the offence under the Act, when the Act nowhere punishes the victim of prostitution. As said, the provisions, the purpose or the object of the Act is not to abolish prostitution or the prostitute. There is no provision under the law, which penalizes a victim who indulges in prostitution. What is punishable is sexual exploitation for commercial purposes and to earn or make a living upon it against such person/s. In the light of the admitted fact that the petitioner/accused No. 8 is a victim and notwithstanding the fact that she is a victim of prostitution, if further trial is permitted to continue it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in patent injustice." (Emphasis supplied) The facts obtaining in the case at hand are identical to the judgment of this Court in SWATHI supra, which was also considering a case where the victim was drawn into the web of proceedings under the Act. It would, therefore, cover the case at hand on all its fours. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12816 CRL.P No. 16670 of 2025 (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1397/2013 pending before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, stand quashed qua the petitioner. I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed as a consequence. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8