High Court quashes ITPA case against alleged customer in Siliguri prostitution case
A petitioner charged under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act sought to quash proceedings in a case pending in Siliguri. The High Court held that an alleged customer did not fall within the penal provisions charged and quashed the case against him.
This page records what the cited court records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The prosecution against the alleged customer stands quashed by the High Court order dated 22 December 2025.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the petitioner had been charged under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and sought quashing of Sessions Case No. 89 (06) of 2022 pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Siliguri, Darjeeling.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that he was allegedly only the customer in the prostitution carried on at the instance of other co-accused, and that there was no material that he controlled the place or lived on earnings of prostitution.
The State opposed the prayer and submitted that a customer also falls within Section 7 of the Act as a person with whom prostitution is carried on.
The High Court recorded that a co-ordinate Bench in Suresh Babu had held an alleged customer cannot be treated as subject to the penal provisions under the Act, and that its own reading of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 substantiated the petitioner's submission.
The High Court allowed the revision and quashed the criminal case concerning the present petitioner.
What the record says
“The petitioner who has been charged with offences under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 has come up before this Court in the instant case seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against him being Sessions Case No. 89 (06) of 2022 corresponding to GR Case No. 280 of 2020, now pending in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Siliguri, Darjeeling.”
Calcutta High Court, CRR 407 of 2025, para 1 — read the full text
No complaining victim
The record concerns prosecution under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act of a person alleged to be a customer; the High Court quashed the case, finding that the alleged customer did not fall within the provisions charged.
What we could not confirm
Incident date not stated in the order beyond GR Case No. 280 of 2020; no allegation of force, minor or complaining victim appears in the order.