-
by sayum
05 October 2026 9:18 AM
The Orissa High Court in a landmark judgment has set aside the cognizance of offences under Sections 370(3) and 370A(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioners, who were customers at a Spa alleged to be a front for a brothel. The judgment highlighted the crucial distinction between the act of being a customer in a brothel and being involved in the trafficking and exploitation of women.
Facts and Issues: The petitioners, Bikash Kumar Jain & another, were implicated in a case registered under various sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and additional charges under IPC sections 370(3) and 370A(2) were added subsequently. The contention revolved around whether customers at a Spa, unknowingly availing services from trafficked women, could be held liable under the stringent provisions of IPC for trafficking and exploitation.
Court Assessment: Justice S.S. Mishra, after a thorough examination of the charges and evidence, including the lack of statements from the alleged victimized women, determined that the allegations and the evidence on record did not substantiate the charges of trafficking and sexual exploitation against the petitioners. The court observed that while the act of prostitution is not illegal per se, the evidence failed to establish that the customers were aware or had reason to believe that the women were trafficked for sexual exploitation. Relying on precedents from various High Courts, the judgment delineated the legal position of customers in such scenarios.
Decision of Judgment: The court concluded that the allegations, taken at their face value, did not establish a prima facie case against the petitioners under the aggravated provisions of the IPC. Consequently, the cognizance of offences under Sections 370(3) and 370A(2) IPC was quashed. However, the petitioners were directed to face trial for other offences as per the charge sheet.
Date of Decision: 09.02.2024
Bikash Kumar Jain & another VS State of Odisha
