Person cannot be fastened with penal consequences merely because he was found in brothel: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that a person cannot be fastened with penal consequences merely because he was at a place which was alleged to be a brothel [Udhaya Kumar v The State]..Justice N Sathish Kumar made the observation while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner who was apprehended and identified as an accused when a massage center, alleged to be a brothel, was raided."In the case on hand, merely because the petitioner was in the place, which is alleged by the respondents to be a brothel being run by some person, the petitioner cannot be fastened with any penal consequence," the Court said. .The Court also noted that the acts of the petitioner could not be said to be pressuring the sex workers and thus, continuing the FIR against this petitioner was nothing but a futile exercise that would serve no purpose."From the facts, as is evident from the FIR and the alteration report, there is no whisper about any coercion on the sex workers to commit the act, more so from the petitioner," the Court said. .The case arose when it was alleged that the petitioner was present along with the sex workers at the time when the police team raided a massage center and consequently, he was apprehended and arrayed as an accused..The single-judge opined that even if the entire report was taken at its face value, it did not show any offence committed by the petitioner, except his presence at the alleged brothel.It was also highlighted by the court that there was no material to show that the petitioner was involved in any sexual act at the alleged brothel, and those rescued had not made any allegation against him..Justice Kumar opined that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Budhadev Karmaskar v The State of West Bengal assumed importance, where it was observed that whenever a brothel was raided, sex workers should not be arrested, penalised, harassed or victimised and it was only the running of the brothel, which was unlawful..Therefore, the petition was allowed, and the FIR against the petitioner was quashed. .The petitioner was represented by advocate D Prasanna Kumar while Additional Public Prosecutor A Gokulakrishnan appeared for the respondent..In a similar decision, the Calcutta High Court had recently ruled that a customer merely visiting a brothel for sexual pleasure could not be held liable for offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.Similarly, the Karnataka High Court had, in April, 2022 reiterated that a customer found in a brothel could not be prosecuted for offences of immoral trafficking..[Read Order]