‘Merely a Customer’: Allahabad HC Quashes ITP Act Case Against Man Caught in Ghaziabad Brothel Raid

For a person caught during a police raid at a brothel, merely being a customer cannot by itself make him liable for prosecution under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the Allahabad High Court has held, quashing criminal proceedings against a man who was allegedly found at such premises in Ghaziabad.

The bench of Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary said a customer may pay money for personal gratification, but that does not mean he visits the premises for the “purpose of prostitution” as contemplated under the Act. Court held that the law requires commercial exploitation for the relevant offence to be attracted.

Court relied on an earlier decision of the court in Dinesh Tiwari @ Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari v State of U.P., which had examined whether a customer found in a brothel could be prosecuted under the ITP Act.

Also Read| No Need to Convict Owner Before Ordering Closure of Premises Used for Prostitution: Bombay HC

In that judgment, the court had noted that Section 3 of the Act punishes a person who keeps, manages or assists in keeping or managing a brothel. “A customer cannot be said to be keeping or managing or acting or assisting in the keeping or management of a brothel,” it had held.

In the present case, the high court applied that reasoning to Nitin, who had approached the court against proceedings arising from a police raid at a house in Ghaziabad.

What happened during the Ghaziabad raid?

According to the prosecution case, police received information on December 31, 2023, that women were engaged in sex trade at a house belonging to one Harish Mawi near DLF Police Chowki at Bhojpura crossing.

Police raided the premises and called the women out of a room. A total of 16 persons, including nine women and seven men, were apprehended.

The women allegedly told police that they were engaged in sex trade and paid part of their earnings to Mawi. An FIR was subsequently registered at Shalimar Garden police station under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the ITP Act.

Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on January 14, 2024. The magistrate took cognizance and passed a summoning order on April 25, 2024.

Nitin then moved the high court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the charge sheet, summoning order and the proceedings pending before the Ghaziabad court.

Why did the accused seek quashing of the proceedings?

The counsel for the accused argued that the mandatory requirement under Section 15(2) of the ITP Act had not been followed. The provision requires the presence of two independent local witnesses during a search.

Also Read| Brothel Customers Have No Commercial Intent, Cannot Be Punished Under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act: Allahabad HC

The defence also argued that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted in their entirety, the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 were not attracted because Nitin was merely a customer who had visited the premises.

The State, however, argued that Nitin had been caught red-handed during the raid at a premises being operated as a brothel. It submitted that the offences were attracted because he had allegedly procured prostitution by paying money.

Court's decision

The high court rejected the prosecution's position and held that a customer who pays money for personal gratification cannot be prosecuted under Sections 3, 5 or 7 of the ITP Act.

“If a person visits a brothel as a customer,” court said, he may at most be procuring a prostitute to satisfy his personal lust, but not for the “purpose of prostitution” as defined under the Act.

Court said the statutory concept of the “purpose of prostitution” requires commercial exploitation. On the facts before it, Nitin was “merely a customer” who had come to satisfy his personal lust after paying money.

Court therefore concluded that Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the ITP Act were not attracted against him and that continuing the proceedings would amount to a “sheer misuse of the process of court”.

It accordingly allowed Nitin's application and quashed the case pending before the Ghaziabad magistrate, along with the January 14, 2024 charge sheet and April 25, 2024 summoning order.

Case title: Nitin v. State of U.P.

Order date: August 11, 2026

Bench: Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary