Mere Presence At Brothel As Customer Does Not Amount To Inducing Or Procuring Persons For Prostitution: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA Act), against a man found at a brothel as a customer, holding that his mere presence there did not amount to causing or inducing any person to engage in prostitution. The Court observed that there was no material to show that the applicant had procured or induced any woman for prostitution or had participated in running the business of prostitution.
Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar was hearing an application seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PITA Act, along with the consequential criminal proceedings. The prosecution alleged that during a raid at a brothel, the applicant was found present along with another person.
Relying on its earlier decision in Mohammad Juned Mohammad Rauf @ Mohammad Juned Maruf Mohammad Rauf v. State of Maharashtra, the Court noted that the applicability of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PITA Act to a person who was merely a customer had already been considered by the High Court.
The Court noted that there was no evidence to indicate that the applicant had paid any amount to the manager for the alleged act, or that he had done anything to cause or induce a woman to engage in 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, in the facts of the present case, would not come within the scope of Section 5 of the PITA Act,” the Court remarked.
The Court also referred to the Division Bench decision in Eimn Abdulamir Jassem Al-Allaf v. State of Maharashtra, which interpreted the word “cause” under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act. The Division Bench had observed that the provision concerns persons responsible for bringing a victim into the flesh trade.
“… the dictionary meaning of the word "cause" is a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon or condition. The Court further observed that the word "cause" is used in the context of those persons who are responsible for bringing the victim into the flesh trade,” the Court reiterated.
It is crucial to contrast the reasoning of the Court in this case with a recent decision of the Kerala High Court in Noushad v. State of Kerala [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 484], wherein the Court held a customer visiting a brothel criminally liable under Sections 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The Court had observed that a customer is not entirely disconnected from the activity that the statute seeks to eradicate, highlighting that the customer becomes an active participant in the transaction by voluntarily entering the brothel and availing the services of a sex worker for consideration.
In the present case, however, the Court held that the investigation material did not disclose that the applicant had kept or managed a brothel, lived on the earnings of another person's prostitution, or procured, induced or taken any person for prostitution. It observed:
“… the prosecution must… show that the accused had committed the acts contemplated under the respective provisions, such as keeping or managing a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution of another person, or procuring, inducing or taking a person for the purpose of prostitution. In the present case, no such material is available against the applicant.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR.
Case Title: Rupesh Ramchandra Chapke v. The State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application No. 3717 of 2026]