Sainath Rajkumar Arjune v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2026:BHC-AUG:3946-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2853 OF 2025 Sainath s/o Rajkumar Arjune, Age 19 years, Occ. Student, R/o. At Korewadi (Takali), Post. Walandi, Deoni, Dist - Latur.
.... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1.
The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station MIDC Waluj Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad 2.
Sandip s/o Uttamrao Borde, Age Major, Occ. Service as SHO (PC-2777), at present Serving with Daultabad Police Station ... RESPONDENTS Mr. Y. B. Birajdar h/f Mr. S. A. Gawande, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. N. Kendre, APP for Respondent/State
CORAM
: S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 23rd JANUARY, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 30th JANUARY, 2026 FINAL ORDER :- 1.
The Applicant seeks quashment of FIR dated 06.06.2025 in Crime No.523 of 2025, registered with MIDC Waluj Police Station, District Aurangabad and consequential proceeding in R.C.C. No. 2806 of 2025, registered with Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad for offences
punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7(1)(b) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and under Section 143 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as against him.
2.
The investigation was set in motion on the basis of information given by Mr. Sandip Uttamrao Borde, who was deputed as Police Sub Inspector at Police Station Daultabad. In nutshell, it is alleged that, on receipt of secrete information regarding activities punishable under The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, raid was conducted at Patil Lodge, Bajajnagar, MIDC Waluj. It was revealed that brothel is run at lodge. Persons waiting for services from sex workers were spotted along with womens engaged in the brothel. So far as Applicant is concerned, allegation is limited that he was present at spot and admitted before police officer that he wanted to avail services from sex worker.
3.
Aforesaid information culminated in registration of Crime No. 523 of 2025 with MIDC Waluj Police Station for said offences charged. Upon conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. The Applicant is arraigned as accused No.7 in charge-sheet.
4.
Mr. Yogsh Biradar, learned Advocate appearing for Applicant, submits that even taking allegations in FIR and material in charge-sheet on its
face value, in its entirety, do not constitute alleged offences. Merely because Applicant was present on spot at brothel, none of charge levelled in chargesheet can be attributed against Applicant. In support of his argument, he relies upon observations of this Court in case of Mahesh Vinayak Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Revision Application No. 347 of 2023, dated 03.01.2024), and urge that in absence of statement of victim that Applicant procured victim for prostitution, ingredients necessary to constitute offences under The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, would not attract. Per contra, Mr. Kendre, learned APP relies upon observations of High Court of Kerala in case of Sarath Chandran Vs. State of Kerala in Crl.M.C. No. 8198 of 2022, dated 21.07.2025, to urge that availing sexual services at brothel will attract the offence under Sections 5(1)(d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, hence triable case has been made out.
5.
Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, and upon perusal of record tendered into service, it can be observed that, except stipulation in FIR that Applicant was found waiting at brothel when raid was conducted, no further incriminating material has been gathered against him during course of the investigation. The FIR merely stipulates that, on inquiry by police officer, Applicant admitted that he had been to brothel for procuring services from sex worker.
Pertinently, during course of investigation, statement of the sex worker or victim is not recorded to demonstrate that Applicant had been to brothel to avail services of sex worker. Even assuming that Applicant had been to brothel with intention to avail services from sex worker, none of the offences charged would attract against him.
6.
In case of Mahesh Vinayak Patil (supra), this Court considered the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act along with the provisions of Indian Penal Code and finally observed in paragraph No.13 as follows: "13.
In the present case the only incriminating material relied upon by the prosecution against him is the statement of the police official that the applicant who is a customer, was found in a room with the victim. The statement of the victim was not recorded. In such view of the matter, it can hardly be said that there is any material on record even at this stage qua this applicant to demonstrate that the victim was procured or attempt was made to procure the victim for the prostitution. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, on the basis of such materials even if taken at its face value does not disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. I rely upon the decision in State by Karnataka Lakayukta Police Station, Bengaluru vs. M. R. Hiremath, (2014) 11 SCC 709, in support of my conclusion."
7.
Similarly, in case of Dinesh Tiwari @ Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. Sate of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another in Application No.9161 of 2023, decided on 22.01.2024, High Court of
Allahabad observed in paragraph No. 22 as under: "22.
From the perusal of the above-quoted Section 5, it is clear that a person can be held liable under the said Section only if he procures, induces or takes a person for the sake of prostitution. Section 2(f) of the Act defines the word "Prostitution".
8.
The exposition of law in aforesaid judgment clearly depicts that mere presence of accused at brothel, without further evidence showing involvement of accused in commission of the offences under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, no charge can be made out. The similar view appears to have been taken by the High Court of Hyderabad in case of Goenka Sajan Kumar Vs. The State of A.P., 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 1192 and High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of Z. Lourdiah Naidu and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2013 Supreme(AP) 415. In this backdrop, although learned APP seeks to rely upon of the observations of High Court of Kerala, in light of consistent views of various High Courts, including this Court, no offence can be made out against the Applicant.
9.
In this backdrop, reference can be given to the observations of Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SC 605, particularly paragraph No.108 reads as under:- "1.
Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in t heir entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. ....
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused." 10.
Applying aforesaid principles to fact in present case, this Court finds that case is made out for exercise of inherent powers. In the interest of justice, the application deserves to be allowed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court. In result, application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses A, A-1 to A-3.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) ssp