[Immoral Traffic Act] 'Grave Suspicion' Enough To Frame Charges, MP High Court On Customer Allegedly Financing 'Procurement' Of Girl For Prostitution

Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently iterated that grave suspicion about a person committing certain offences is sufficient for the trial court to frame charges. The High Court was considering a challenge against the trial court's order of framing charges under Sections 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Relying on M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI, Bengaluru, (2020) 2 SCC 768 and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan Bansal, (2020) 2 SCC 290, the High Court concluded that no case is made out that warrants interference against the order of JMFC, Jabalpur framing the charge for offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the 1956 Act. A criminal revision arising from the said order was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in 2021.

The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia noted the moot point involved was whether a customer, who had paid money for 'procuring' a girl could be punished under Sections 5 & 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 or not.

“….in view of the fact that there is specific allegation that the girl was procured by the applicant for the purpose of prostitution coupled with the fact that there was no such material in the case of Naman Laddha (supra), this Court is of considered opinion that this case is distinguishable from the facts of the case of Naman Laddha (supra)”, the court held in the order since the petitioner had relied on the ratio in Naman Laddha v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022).

In Naman Laddha, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a person cannot be said to have 'procured' a woman for prostitution due to his act of visiting the house of sex workers as a customer.

Interestingly, the petitioner had also referred to X v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 766. The court noted with surprise that the said decision of the Kerala High Court was not in favour of the petitioner. In this case, it was held that even a 'Consumer' in a brothel house can be made liable U/S 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act for 'procuring' persons for prostitution.

“…The procurement would necessarily mean to get possession of or to obtain something. If the word 'procure' is considered in the light of the context in which it has been made in the 1956 Act, then it has to be held that even the customer who was found from the spot is liable to be prosecuted for the offence under section 5 of the 1956 Act”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur reproduced the excerpt from the Kerala High Court's decision in 2023.

About Section 6 of the Act and its inclusion in the chargesheet, Justice Ahluwalia said that the aspects of whether the girl's detention in the premises where prostitution is carried out was with her consent or not, and whether the act of procuring a person would amount to abetment to commit an offence under section 6 of the 1956 Act or not can be determined at trial after recording evidence.

“…A person was detained by keeping it in a room which was being used as a brothel and the applicant by making payment of money, has procured the said person for the purpose prostitution. Even the owner of the house is also being tried”, the court emphasised.

In M.E. Shivalingamurthy cited by the High Court, it was held that the defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC. Similarly, in Shiv Charan Bansal, it was noted by the apex court noted that if the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial.

Advocate R.K. Sen appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Mohan Sausarkar represented the state.

Case Title: Rishabh Khare v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 15353 of 2022

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 56

Click Here To Read/ Download Order