Customer found in hotel room during vice raid faced prosecution under vice and trafficking laws
Police raided a lodging hotel and prosecuted a man found in a room with a woman as a customer under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and trafficking law. The High Court recorded that the victim's statement was never recorded and only police statements were relied on. The Court set aside the refusal to discharge him.
This page records what the cited court records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The prosecution under Sections 3, 4, 5 of PITA and Section 370 IPC does not continue against the customer following the High Court order.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the FIR was registered on 29/10/2014 after police raided a lodging and boarding hotel on 28/10/2014 at about 8.15 p.m. on the allegation that prostitution activities were being carried out there.
The High Court recorded that the applicant was accused no. 5 and was alleged to be a customer found in a room with the woman named in the panchnama, with cash of Rs 250 found with the woman.
The High Court recorded that the State informed the Court that the statement of the victim was not recorded and the only material was the statement of raiding police officials.
The High Court held that Sections 3 and 4 of the PITA and Section 370 of the IPC were not attracted on those facts and set aside the Sessions Court order dated 25/8/2023 that had rejected discharge, allowing the revision for the applicant only.
What the record says
“In my view, Sections 3 and 4 of the PITA as well as Section 370 of the IPC are not at all attracted in the present facts as the applicant is alleged to be a customer and as the statement of the victim is not recorded.”
Criminal Revision Application No. 347/2023, 2024:BHC-AS:1562, para 9 — read the full text
No complaining victim
Paid sex between adults involved no complaining victim, no minor, and no allegation of force or deception against the customer, so prosecution punished a victimless arrangement.
What we could not confirm
Victim age and consent were not established by a victim statement; the Court decided on the absence of material. Trial status of co-accused was not confirmed.