The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a case against a man who was discovered in a "compromising position" at a brothel. The petitioner had been charged under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

In quashing the case, a single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee ruled:

From the record it appears that there is no material on record even after completion of investigation, to demonstrate that the victim was procured or any attempt was made to procure the victim for the prostitution by the present petitioner/customer.

The allegation against the petitioner was that, during a raid conducted on December 8, 2019, he was found in a compromising position with a woman in a brothel operating under the guise of a "family saloon and spa."

Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against all the accused, including the petitioner, under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, and 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The court noted that Section 3 of the Act provides punishment for the act of keeping, managing, or assisting in the management of a brothel.

The court observed that the petitioner, being admittedly a customer, could hardly be considered as keeping, managing, or assisting in the management of the brothel. The case diary materials clearly indicated that the petitioner merely paid money to engage a woman for his personal gratification, and no further involvement in the operation of the brothel was evident.

The court noted that there was no allegation against the petitioner suggesting that he was involved in the sexual exploitation or abuse of individuals for commercial purposes, which would be necessary to implicate him under Section 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The court further stated that merely visiting the brothel as a customer would not amount to "procuring" under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 

The public prosecutor, representing the State, argued that since the term "procure" is not explicitly defined in the Act, it should be interpreted in light of the statute's objective, as intended by the legislature.

Referring to the object and reasons behind the statute, the counsel contended that the primary aim of the Act is to prevent the commercialization of vice and the trafficking of women and girls. Accordingly, the term "procure" should be interpreted in this context. Procurement, as per this interpretation, involves a person who gains control over another for the purpose of prostitution. In this view, a customer would also fall within the purview of Section 5 of the Act.

However, the court noted that in the present case, the statements of the alleged victims, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., clearly revealed that all the victims had voluntarily entered the profession to earn a livelihood and support their children. They had stated before the Magistrate that no one had forced them into the profession, nor had they made any allegations of exploitation or abuse for commercial purposes.

Accordingly, the court noted that Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, was not applicable to the present petitioner. 

Thus, ruling out the petitioner’s culpability for all the charges leveled against him under the 1956 Act, the court quashed the case.

Case: Debal Banerjee @ Debdal Banerjee @ Debdulal Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal

Case No: CRR 3306 of 2022