“‘Ingredients of Trafficking Law Not Attracted to Customer’: Allahabad High Court Quashes Case, States ‘Proceedings Unsustainable in Law’ as No Evidence of Enticement or Procurement Found”
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad quashed criminal proceedings against an individual charged under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar, recorded that the allegations, even if taken as true, failed to establish that the applicant had engaged in trafficking, enticement, or procurement. The Court recorded, “even if the applicant's alleged involvement are taken as true, the ingredients of Section 370 of I.P.C. read with Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Act are not attracted qua applicant.”
The application was filed by Vipul Kohli seeking to quash proceedings initiated in Criminal Case No. 10149 of 2024, registered at Police Station Noida, Sector 49, District Commissionerate Gautam Buddha Nagar under Section 370 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
According to the prosecution, the police, acting on confidential information, conducted a raid on 20.05.2024 at Allora Thai Spa Centre. Aphrodisiac substances were recovered, and individuals were allegedly found engaged in prostitution. The FIR was registered against both the spa’s owner and the applicant, who was discovered in a compromising position with a woman inside the spa.
The applicant’s counsel submitted that the applicant was neither the owner of the spa nor connected to the management or operation of the premises. It was submitted that the applicant was merely a customer who had paid for consensual services and was not involved in enticing, procuring, or trafficking women into prostitution, which are the specific elements outlined under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The counsel argued that no specific allegations were made against the applicant to suggest involvement in the offences of procuring, inducing, or trafficking as required under the aforementioned provisions. The counsel further relied on a prior decision of a coordinate Bench in Application u/s 482 No. 9161 of 2023, in which it was held that customers do not fall under the purview of Sections 5 or 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the application, stating that the applicant was found on the premises during the raid and arrested on the spot. The prosecution also cited the woman’s statement implicating the applicant.
Justice Vinod Diwakar examined the submissions of both parties, the record, and the prior precedents cited. The Court recorded, “It’s prosecution's case that the applicant was found involved consensually with one of the women at the spa, having paid for the services. Therefore, the proceedings against the applicant are unsustainable in law.”
The Court further noted, “the lady with whom the applicant has been alleged to have found involved is neither the complainant nor a police witness, therefore, the chances of conviction are also bleak.”
The Court observed that the operative provisions under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, relate to acts such as procuring, inducing, or facilitating prostitution, none of which were attributed to the applicant. The Court also recorded that Section 370 IPC, which concerns trafficking for exploitation, was similarly inapplicable given the absence of allegations of coercion or inducement on the applicant’s part.
The Court noted that “the consistent rulings of other High Courts,” along with the coordinate Bench’s earlier decision, “have clarified that the operative provisions of the Act do not extend to customers.”
The Court quashed the cognizance and summoning order dated 05.10.2024 issued by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-2/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar. The Court also quashed all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10149 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 206 of 2024 under Section 370 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The Court recorded, “Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Applicant: Raunak Tiwari, Senior Advocate, Vivek Kumar Singh.
For the Respondents: Government Advocate.
Case Title: Vipul Kohli v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:36091
Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 8170 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar
[Read/Download order]
