Kerala High Court
Vishnu P.V vs State Of Kerala on 17 February, 2026
Crl.M.C.9565/25
1
2026:KER:14343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 28TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9565 OF 2025
CRIME NO.416/2025 OF Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam
FIR NO.416 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - VIII,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
VISHNU P.V
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. VISWAMBHARAN, AGED 27 YEARS, VISHNUBHAVAN, THURUTHI,
VAZHAPPALLI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686103
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BABY THOMAS
SHRI.K.K.MOHANDAS
SMT.MARIAMMA JOSEPH
SHRI.BIJU GEORGE
SRI.INDRAJITH S KAIMAL
SHRI.ALBERTHOVE FRANCIS.M.G.
SMT.EHLAS HALEEMA C.K.
SMT.ALICIA JOSE
SHRI.JOHNY GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
682020
PP. SMT. ANIMA.M
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
4.2.2026, THE COURT ON 17.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.9565/25
2
2026:KER:14343
ORDER
Dated : 17th February, 2026
The 4th accused in crime No.416/2025 of Kadavanthra police station
filed this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S, praying for quashing all
further proceedings against him. The offences alleged in the FIR are under
Sections 3(1), 3(2)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short,
the Act).
2. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons 1 and 2 with the
intention to make earnings by running a brothel, took on rent a two-storied
building at Gandhi Nagar and have been conducting a brothel therein. The 3 rd
accused came there after paying consideration online and used the service of
one of the ladies kept there for his sexual needs and thereby they are alleged to
have committed the aforesaid offence. Accused No.3 referred to in the FIR is
the petitioner herein, who is now arrayed as accused No.4.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the
allegations in the FIR, the petitioner is only a customer and as such, the
offences in the FIR will not lie against him. Therefore, he prayed for quashing
all further proceedings against the petitioner.
4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public
Prosecutor. According to her, subsequently Sections 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d) and 7(1)
Crl.M.C.9565/25
3
2026:KER:14343
(b) of the Act and Section 143(1)(f), 144(2) r/w 34 BNS were also revealed
and therefore, she prayed for dismissing the petition.
5. Section 3 of the Act deals with punishment for keeping a brothel
or allowing premises to be used as a brothel and as such, the above provision
does not apply to the petitioner.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, relying upon the decision of this
Court in Sarath Chandran v. State of Kerala, 2025 (6) KHC 25, would argue
that in this case Section 5 is attracted.
7. Section 5 of the Act reads as follows :-
“5. Procuring, inducing or taking woman or girl for the sake of
prostitution.
(1) Any person who-
(a) procures or attempts to procure a woman or girl, whether
with or without her consent, for the purpose of prostitution; or
(b) induces a woman or girl to go from any place, with the intent
that she may for the purpose of prostitution become the inmate of,
or frequent, a brothel; or
(c) takes or attempts to take a woman or girl, or causes a woman
or girl to be taken, from one place to another with a view to her
carrying on, or being brought up to carry on prostitution; or
(d) causes or induces a woman or girl to carry on prostitution;
shall be punishable on conviction with rigorous imprisonment for
a term of not less than three years and not more than seven years
and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and
if any offence under this sub-section is committee against the will
of any person, the punishment of imprisonment for a term of
Crl.M.C.9565/25
4
2026:KER:14343
seven years shall extend to imprisonment for a term of fourteen
years:
PROVIDED that if the person in respect of whom an offence
committed under this sub-section –
(i) is a child, the punishment provided under this sub-section
shall extend to rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than
seven years but may extend to life; and
(ii) is a minor, the punishment provided under this sub-section
shall extend to rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than
seven years and not more than fourteen years;]
(3) An offence under this section shall be triable–
(a) in the place from which a 1 [person] is procured, induced to
go, taken or caused to be taken or from which an attempt to
procure or take such 1 [person] is made; or
(b) in the place to which he may have gone as a result of the
inducement or to which he is taken or caused to be taken or an
attempt to take him is made.
8. Therefore in order to attract the offence under Section 5(1)(a) of
the Act, a person should procure, induce or take persons for the purpose of
prostitution. In order to attract the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act, a
person should cause or induce a woman or girl to carry on prostitution.
9. In the decision in Maniraj v. State of Kerala, 2019 (3) KHC
183, also this Court held that Section 5 of the Act would be attracted only if
the prosecution has a case that the accused induced a person to go from any
place with intent that he may, for the purpose of prosecution, become the
Crl.M.C.9565/25
5
2026:KER:14343
inmate of, or frequent a brothel. In the instant case, there is no such allegation
against the petitioner and as such, the offence under Section 5 of the Act is also
not made out against the petitioner.
10. In the decision in Abhijith v. State of Kerala, 2023 KHC 9425,
in a similar instance this Court held that a customer cannot be held liable under
Section 5 of the above Act. In the decision in Abdul Hameed P. v. State of
Kerala and Another (Crl.M.C.8277/2024) also, after referring to another
decision in Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2008 (2) KLT 521, this Court
held that a customer in a brothel cannot be punished under Sections 3 and 4 of
the Act.
11. In the instant case, even as per the prosecution case, the women
were kept in the brothel by the accused persons 1 and 2 and they were not
brought by the petitioner. The prosecution also has no case that the petitioner
caused or induced the women to carry on prostitution. Therefore, the
allegations raised against the petitioner do not constitute the offence
punishable under Section 5 of the Act.
12. In order to attract the offence under Section 7 of the Act,
prostitution is to be carried out in the vicinity of a public place. Section 7 of
the Act reads as follows :-
7. Prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places.
(1) Any person, who carries on prostitution and the person with
Crl.M.C.9565/256
2026:KER:14343
whom such prostitution is carried on, in any premises –
(a) which are within the area or areas, notified under sub-section
(3) , or
(b) which are within a distance of two hundred metres of any place
of public religious worship, educational institution, hostel,
hospital, nursing home or such other public place of any kind as
may be notified in this behalf by the Commissioner of Police or
Magistrate in the manner prescribed,shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three months.
(1A) Where an offence committed under sub-section (1) is in
respect of a child or minor, the person committing the offence
shall be punishable with imprisonment or either description for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be
for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also
be liable to fine :
Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to
be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment
for a term of less than seven years.
(2) Any person who –
(a) being the keeper of any public place knowingly permits
prostitution for purposes of their trade to resort to or remain in
such place; or
(b) being the tenant, lessor or landlord, of any premises referred
to in sub-section (1) knowingly permits the same or any part
thereof to be used for prostitution; or
(c) being the owner, lessor or landlord, of any premises referred to
Crl.M.C.9565/257
2026:KER:14343
in sub-section (1), or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord,
lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that the same
or any part thereof may be used for prostitution, or is wilfully a
party to such use,shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may
extend to two hundred rupees, or with both, and in the event of a
second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months and also with fine 2 [which may
extend to two hundred rupees, and if the public place or premises
happen to be a hotel, the licence for carrying on the business of
such hotel under any law for the time being in force shall also be
liable to be suspended for a period of not less than three months
but which may extend to one year:
Provided that if an offence committed under this sub-section is in
respect of a child or minor in a hotel, such licence shall also be
liable to be cancelled.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, “hotel” shall
have the meaning an in clause (6) of section 2 of the Hotel-
Receipts Tax Act, 1980 (54 of 1980).][(3) The State Government may, having regard to the kinds of
persons frequenting any area or areas in the State, the nature and
the density of population therein and other relevant
considerations, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that
prostitution shall not be carried on in such area or areas as may
be specified in the notification.
(4) Where a notification is issued under sub-section (3) in respect
of any area or areas, the State Government shall define the limits
Crl.M.C.9565/258
2026:KER:14343
of such area or areas in the notification with reasonable certainty
(5) No such notification shall be issued so as to have effect from a
date earlier than the expiry of a period of ninety days after the
date on which it is issued.]
13. The prosecution has no case that the alleged place of incident is a
notified area. It is contended that there is a Cross Chappel (ക ര ശ പള )
within a distance of 50 metres from the place of occurrence. It is not a place
where there are any ceremonies like holy mass or service so as to be called as a
public religious worship. Therefore, in the facts of this case the offence under
Section 7 of the Act is also not attracted. In the above circumstances, no useful
purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner and
as such, all further proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the
petitioner in crime No.416/2025 of Kadavanthra police station stands quashed.
Sd/-
C.Pratheep Kumar, Judge
Mrcs/10.6.26
Crl.M.C.9565/25
9
2026:KER:14343
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 9565 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 0416/2025
OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION DATED
15.07.2025 IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE A1.
Annexure 2 THE REMAND REPORT IN CRIME NO.416/2025
OF KADAVATHRA POLICE STATION DATED
15.07.2025 AND MARKS THE REMAND REPORT
AS ANNEXURE A2.
