Customer Found In Brothel At Time Of Raid Can’t Be Hauled Into Criminal Proceedings: Karnataka High Court
Core Principle Established by Karnataka High Court
1. Customers in Brothels Are Not Criminally Liable
In Babu S. v. State (Criminal Petition No. 2119 of 2022, decided on April 4, 2022), the Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings initiated against an individual found as a customer during a brothel raid. Justice M. Nagaprasanna reiterated:
“A customer in a brothel cannot be hauled into criminal proceedings”
The facts were straightforward: the petitioner was merely found inside during a police search and was charged under several provisions under the ITPA and IPC. The Court held that none applied to a customer
2. Reliance on Precedent: Barath SP v. State of Karnataka
The Court leaned heavily on the judgment in Barath SP v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P. No. 1757/2022, disposed on March 24, 2022). That ruling, also from the Karnataka High Court, underscored that customers cannot be prosecuted under sections dealing with brothel-keeping, living off prostitution, procuring, detaining, or trafficking, since they don’t engage in any of those acts
Moreover, several subsequent petitions—like Manjunath v. State of Karnataka—reiterated:
“A customer, in a brothel/Spa, cannot be hauled into criminal proceedings is the consistent view taken by this Court in a plethora of cases”
Similarly, cases like Vinayak Venu Kuttian involved nearly identical facts and were met with the same judicial outcome: the Ranch (Court) consistently quashes proceedings against customers
3. Pleadings Reflect Consistent Judicial Reasoning
In a series of cases—including ones from 2005, 2013, and 2021 raids—the Karnataka High Court repeatedly held that being a customer does not attract criminal liability under the sections invoked. These cases confirmed that:
Customers are not involved in management or earning from the brothel (unlike those liable under Section 3 of ITPA).
They don't “live off” prostitution, procure or induce persons, or detain anyone (as required by other ITPA provisions).
No trafficking nexus exists simply by being present (Section 370, IPC)
Hence, across time, the principle has held firm: mere presence in a brothel during a police raid doesn’t make a person an accused.
Summary of Legal Reasoning in Table Format
| Case / Context | Judicial Finding |
|---|---|
| Babu S. v. State | Quashed proceedings; customer cannot be prosecuted when found during raid. |
| Barath SP v. State | Held customers do not fall under ITPA/IPC provisions invoked in such prosecutions. |
| Manjunath & others | Numerous similar cases reaffirmed the principle consistently. |
| Historical/Repeated Raids | Even older cases with identical facts have been decided in favor of customers. |
Legal Takeaway
The Karnataka High Court has developed a clear and unambiguous judicial position:
Customers are not criminally liable under ITPA or trafficking provisions simply by being found in a brothel during a raid.
This applies even when the same charges are invoked—because customers do not fulfil the required elements of such offences.
The consistent judicial thread is that liability must be rooted in active participation or culpable conduct, and mere presence does not meet that threshold.
RELATED Blog
0 comments