“Immoral Traffic Act Targets Exploitation of Another Woman, Not Her Own Alleged Participation in Prostitution”; Offences Require Living on Another’s Earnings or Procuring Another Woman: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Charges Under Sections 4 and 5
Case Name: Ajaib Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: September 14, 2026
Citation: CRR No. 944 of 2018
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an allegation that a woman herself participated in prostitution does not, without more, constitute an offence under Section 4 or Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Section 4 applies where a person knowingly lives, wholly or partly, on the earnings derived from the prostitution of another woman or girl. It cannot be invoked merely because the woman concerned is herself alleged to have engaged in prostitution.
The Court further held that Section 5 requires an act directed towards another woman or girl, such as procuring, inducing or taking her from one place to another for prostitution, or causing or inducing her to carry on prostitution. Where no such role is attributed to the accused, the allegation that she herself voluntarily accompanied certain persons and engaged in sexual relations for consideration does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 5.
Although a court is not required to undertake a meticulous evaluation of evidence at the stage of framing charges, it must still determine whether the allegations and material collected during investigation disclose the basic ingredients of the alleged offences. A charge cannot be sustained merely because the investigating agency has referred to a particular penal provision in the police report when the alleged facts, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute that offence.
However, allegations that the co-petitioner demanded ₹4 lakh from the family of an accused for removing his name from a rape case and received part of that amount, supported by witness statements and electronic evidence, were sufficient to sustain the charge of extortion under Section 384 IPC. The allegation that the woman acted in connivance with him and the other accused also disclosed a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B read with Section 384 IPC.
Summary: The revision petition arose from FIR No. 80 dated September 20, 2015, registered at Police Station Banur. The FIR was initially lodged on the statement of Goldy, who alleged that five persons had forcibly confined her and subjected her to gang rape. On the basis of her statement, offences under Sections 376-D and 342 IPC were initially registered against Mandeep Singh and four unidentified persons.
During the investigation, however, the police arrived at a different version of the occurrence. According to the police report, Goldy had voluntarily accompanied the accused persons and the sexual relations were consensual and for consideration. The investigation further alleged that Goldy, acting in connivance with her husband and other persons, attempted to extort money from the families of the persons implicated by threatening them with prosecution in the gang-rape case.
The police alleged that Ajaib Singh demanded ₹4 lakh from the mother of Parvinder Singh for securing the removal of his name from the rape case. It was further alleged that he received ₹1 lakh from Parvinder Singh’s sister and ₹5,000 from Rakesh Kumar. The prosecution relied upon witness statements, video recordings, CCTV footage and call records in support of its case.
Goldy, who had initially approached the police as the complainant, was subsequently arrayed as an accused. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali, framed charges against her under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Sections 384 and 120-B IPC. A charge under Section 384 IPC was framed against Ajaib Singh. Their applications seeking discharge were dismissed, leading to the present revision petition.
Examining the scope of Section 4, the High Court found no allegation that Goldy was living on or appropriating the earnings of the prostitution of another woman. Nor was she alleged to be acting as a tout or pimp for another person. The prosecution’s own case was that she had herself allegedly participated in prostitution. The foundational requirement of Section 4 was therefore absent.
Regarding Section 5, the Court found no allegation that Goldy had procured, induced or transported another woman for prostitution, or had caused or induced another woman to engage in prostitution. Even if the prosecution version was accepted in its entirety, it merely alleged her own participation in sexual relations for consideration, which did not attract Section 5.
The Court, however, declined to discharge Ajaib Singh from the offence of extortion. The allegations of demanding and receiving money, together with the statements and electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution, disclosed a prima facie case under Section 384 IPC. Whether those allegations were true and whether the supporting evidence was trustworthy were matters for trial. Similarly, the charge of conspiracy against Goldy under Section 120-B read with Section 384 IPC was left undisturbed.
Decision: The High Court partly allowed the revision petition and quashed the charges framed against Goldy under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The charge under Section 384 IPC against Ajaib Singh was maintained. The charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B read with Section 384 IPC against Goldy was also maintained. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.