Judgment 1 J-APL No.1136.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1136 OF 2026 1) Shashikant S/o Bhaurao Kate, Aged about 41 years, Occ.- Agriculturist, R/o. Sakharkherda, Tah. Sindkhedraja, District Buldhana. 2) Omprakash S/o Shankar Chopade, Aged about 28 years, Occ.- Private Job, R/o. Bhar Jahagir, Tah. Risod, District Washim. 3) Ashok S/o Manik Gawali, Aged about 33 years, Occ.- Agriculturist, R/o. Pankanergaon, Tah. Sengaon, District Hingoli. …. APPLICANTS // VERSUS // The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Station Officer, Police Station, Risod, Tah. Risod, Dist. Washim. …. NON-APPLICANT _____________________________________________________________ Mr. N. B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for applicants. Mr. N. H. Joshi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for non-applicant. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : AUGUST 27, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:11305 Judgment 2 J-APL No.1136.2026.odt 2. The present application is filed for quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No.54/2023, dated 26.01.2023, registered with Police Station, Risod, District Washim for the offences punishable under Section 370(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”) and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short the “PITA Act”) as well as consequent Chargesheet No.63/2023, dated 06.06.2023 registered as Session Trial Case No.86/2025, pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim. 3. The prosecution’s case in a nutshell is as under : On 26.01.2023, Police Inspector, Police Station, Risod received secret information that at Indira Nagar, Risod one Shashikala Digambar Ambhore/co-accused was running a brothel in her house. Therefore, he conducted a raid in the house of co-accused Shashikala Ambhore by sending a dummy customer. The Police Inspector, along with the other police officers including the complainant i.e. PSI Shilpa Surgade-member of the raiding party had been to the house of Shashikala Ambhore, where two women and three male persons were found, apart from the dummy customer. The incriminating articles were recovered from co-accused Shashikala Ambhore and a detailed Panchnama was prepared. On the complaint of PSI Shilpa Surgade, the complaint came to be lodged with Police Station, Risod alleging Judgment 3 J-APL No.1136.2026.odt that co-accused Shashikala Ambhore was running brothel in her house and two women and three customers (present applicants) were found in inside the house. Therefore, on her complaint, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the applicants and co-accused Shashikala Ambhore. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants vehemently submitted that even if the allegations in the chargesheet are accepted, no offence is made out against the applicants. According to him, the applicants were merely present in the house. No incriminating articles were seized from any of the applicants. Rather, none of the applicants were found in compromising positions with any of the women. When the raid was conducted, the three applicants were siting in the hall. According to the learned Counsel for the applicants, even otherwise, charges under the provisions of the PITA Act cannot be imposed on a customer. To buttress his submission, he relied on the decision in the case of Mohammad Juned Mohammad Rauf @ Mohammad Juned Maruf Mohammad Rauf vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2020(6) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 356. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor objected to the application on the ground that the applicants were apprehended during the raid. They were present in the house and therefore, the Judgment 4 J-APL No.1136.2026.odt provisions of the PITA Act will be applicable. Therefore, he sought rejection of the application. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. I have gone through the chargesheet. 7. The investigation papers reveal that soon after the panchnama was prepared, all the applicants have been described as customers. Rather, the case of the prosecution itself is that the applicants were present as customers in the house which was raided. It also appears that apart from cash and mobile phones, no incriminating material was recovered from the applicants. The panchnama also depicts that all the applicants were simply siting in the house and they were not found in compromising positions. In the background of this factual aspect, let us see whether the offence under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the PITA Act are made out against the present applicants. 8. Section 3 of the PITA Act prescribes punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Admittedly, as per the prosecution’s own story, the applicants are not running a brothel or allowing their premises to be used as a brothel. Judgment 5 J-APL No.1136.2026.odt Therefore, Section 3 will have no application to the facts of the case in hand. 9. Section 4 of the PITA Act, prescribes punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution of any other person. Indisputably, the applicants are not the persons who are making their living on the earnings of the prostitution of any other person. 10. Section 5 of the PITA Act reads as under : “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) 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 (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 year 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 sub-section, – (i) is a child, the punishment provided under this sub- section shall extend to rigorous imprisonment for a Judgment 6 J-APL No.1136.2026.odt 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 triable- (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 she may have gone as a result of the inducement or to which she is taken or caused to be taken or an attempt to take him is made.” 11. Thus, for pressing the provisions of Section 5 into service, the prosecution has to prove Sub Section (a) that the applicant had procured a person for the purpose of prostitution. For pressing Sub Section (b) into service, the prosecution has to adduce evidence to show that the applicant had induced a person to go from any place with intent that he may, for the purpose of prostitution, become inmate of, or frequent, a brothel. For invoking the provisions of Sub Section (c) there has to be evidence to show that the applicant took or attempted to take a person from one place to another with a view to carry on prostitution. 12. None of the Sub-Sections (a) to (c) can be pressed into service so far as the applicants are concerned, as it is not the case of the prosecution that the applicants procured any person or induced Judgment 7 J-APL No.1136.2026.odt any person to go from any place for the purpose of prostitution or took a person from one place to another for carrying on prostitution. 13. On perusal of the investigation papers, not a single statement is found indicating that the applicants have caused or induced a girl to carry on prostitution. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicants induced or caused these girls to carry on prostitution. The FIR and the panchnama show that when the raiding party raided the brothel, the applicants were found along with one more person i.e. the dummy customer. 14. There is no evidence to indicate that the applicants have paid any amount to the Manger of the brothel for such act. It is the prosecution’s case that when the raiding party raided the brothel, the applicants were found there with another person. Thus, there is nothing in the investigation papers to indicate that the applicants were doing anything which would suggest that the applicants caused or induced any girl to carry on prostitution. Mere presence at the brothel will not amount to causing or inducing any person to carry on prostitution. Therefore, soliciting sexual intercourse from a girl will not come within the scope of the Section 5 of the PITA Act. 15. So far as Section 7 of the PITA Act is concerned, it provides punishment for carrying out prostitution in or in the vicinity Judgment 8 J-APL No.1136.2026.odt of public places. There is nothing on record to show that it was the applicants who were carrying out prostitution in the said premises and that the premises belongs to the applicants. The chargesheet itself depicts that co-accused Shashikala Ambhore was carrying on the business of prostitution in her own residential house located at a residential locality in Indira Nagar, Risod. At the cost of repetition, the applicants were not found in compromising positions with the victim girls. There is no material in the entire chargesheet which would suggest that the present applicants are in any way concerned with the said premises or were actively carrying out the activities of prostitution in the said premises in order to attract Section 7 of the PITA Act. 16. Thus, as stated above, none of the ingredients of the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 are made out against the applicants by the prosecution. 17. At this stage, it would be appropriate to rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein, in para 102 it has been observed as under : “102. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the Judgment 9 J-APL No.1136.2026.odt process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide- 7 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institu- tion and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party and (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is Judgment 10 J-APL No.1136.2026.odt maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Therefore, the present case is squarely covered by para 102 of the decision referred above. 18. In view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The criminal application is allowed. (ii) FIR No.54/2023, dated 26.01.2023, registered with Police Station, Risod, District Washim for the offences punishable under Section 370(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 as well as consequent Chargesheet No.63/2023, dated 06.06.2023 registered as Session Trial Case No.86/2025, pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, qua the applicants are hereby quashed and set aside. 19. The criminal application is disposed of. Rule is made absolute. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/08/2026 14:27:50