Telangana High Court
Kumpati Charan Alias Chintu vs The State Of Telangana on 25 April, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3700 of 2025
ORDER:
This criminal petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') seeking quashment of proceedings in Sessions Case No.233 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Kushaiguda, Medchal Malkajgiri District.
2. The petitioner is accused No.3 charged for the offences under Section 370(A)(2) of Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, 'PITA').
3. I have heard Ms.Saggala Srivani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State.
4. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 07.02.2023 the police on credible information of organizing brothel house surprised the Plot No.62, Sri Sai Krishna Nagar Colony, near KCR Nagar, Ramanthapur and found the petitioner along with a 2 NTR,J Crlp_3700_2025 woman/victim. Upon the due proceedings the complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.162 of 2023 has been registered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the complaint and even in the charge sheet the petitioner is projected as only customer. The record of prosecution is not disclosing that the petitioner has knowledge of trafficking or his involvement in any manner in organizing the prostitution. A coordinate bench of this Court had considered the similar allegations in Criminal Petition Nos.1647 of 2025 and 1639 of 2025 and concluded that the allegations would not make out a case against the customer under any of the arraigned sections. Thus prayed for intervention and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the fact of the petitioner being customer is not in dispute. He further fairly submitted that a coordinate bench of this Court has considered similar issue and favourably concluded that the charges cannot be sustained against the customer.
3 NTR,J Crlp_3700_2025
7. I have carefully perused the materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsel.
8. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner ex facie is that the petitioner/accused No.3 is found along with the victim in a room at a place arranged by the organizer/other accused and as customer availing service by paying certain amount. Even as per the victim, she has volunteered subject to payment through the other accused/management.
9. This factual position needs examination within the meaning of Section 370 of I.P.C., which is defining trafficking of a person. For better appreciation, Section 370 of I.P.C. is extracted hereunder:
370. Trafficking of person.--(1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by--
Firstly. -- using threats, or Secondly. -- using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly. -- by abduction, or Fourthly. -- by practising fraud, or deception, or Fifthly. -- by abuse of power, or Sixthly. -- by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person 4 NTR,J Crlp_3700_2025 having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.
Explanation 1.--The expression "exploitation" shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs.
Explanation 2.--The consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of the offence of trafficking. (2) Whoever commits the offence of trafficking shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one person, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (4) Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(5) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than fourteen years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (6) If a person is convicted of the offence of trafficking of minor on more than one occasion, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
5 NTR,J Crlp_3700_2025 (7) When a public servant or a police officer is involved in the trafficking of any person then, such public servant or police officer shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
370A. Exploitation of a trafficked person.-- (1) Whoever, knowingly or having reason to believe that a minor has been trafficked, engages such minor for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever, knowingly by or having reason to believe that a person has been trafficked, engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
10. A careful reading of the provision in juxtaposition with the circumstances narrated in the instant case is making out that the victim consented to the act due to a monetary inducement offered through the manager/accused/organizer, who in turn collects payment from the customer. This situation is demonstrating that the victim's consent was obtained in exchange for financial benefit. Prima facie, this factual position qualifies recruitment of the victim for the purpose of exploitation, as defined under 6 NTR,J Crlp_3700_2025 Section 370(1) of the IPC. Procuring a person with consent for the purpose of prostitution would be within the scope of Section 5 of the PITA. Therefore, this scenario leads to the conclusion that the victim is a trafficked person.
11. It is a settled legal principle that intention or knowledge can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. In the instant case, as per the accusations the petitioner obtained the victim's consent for a sexual act through payment made to the manager, who was involved in trafficking. Additionally, the petitioner engaged in a sexual act with an unknown victim in unrelated premises arranged by the manager. The act of securing consent by making payment supports the inference that the petitioner had knowledge that the victim was a trafficked person.
12. In these circumstances, subject to proof of the allegations at trial, the actions of the petitioner may constitute exploitation of a trafficked person under Section 370-A(2) of the IPC (or Section 144 of the BNS, 2023). Accordingly, the prosecution's allegations require judicial examination during trial, and any premature conclusion that the allegations do not establish an offence against the petitioner would be premature and improper. Therefore, the 7 NTR,J Crlp_3700_2025 request to quash the proceedings at this stage under Section 370-A of the IPC/BNS, 2023 is unsustainable.
13. Howsoever, Section 3 of the PITA deals with the offence of keeping or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Section 4 prescribes punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution, and Section 5 relates to procuring or inducing a person for prostitution. In the instant case, there is no allegation in the complaint, or in the witnesses statements, or in the other prosecution record suggesting that the petitioner was involved in organizing or managing prostitution. Therefore, applying these provisions to the petitioner would be unwarranted.
14. Furthermore, a coordinate bench of this Court, in Crl.P. No. 2976 of 2022, by order dated 06.06.2022, after analyzing similar facts and related precedents, observed in paragraph 9 as follows:
"9. As discussed above, the petitioner herein is a customer. Therefore, the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients necessary to attract Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the PITA. A customer of flesh trade cannot be treated as an offender under these provisions. There is no allegation that the petitioner recruited, transported, harboured, transferred, or received any person for the purpose of exploitation. In Mohammad Riyaz v. The State of Telangana, the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, referring to the principles laid down in S. Naveen Kumar and Vinod @ Vijay Bhagubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [2017 (4) GLR 2804], quashed 8 NTR,J Crlp_3700_2025 the proceedings under Section 370 IPC and Sections 3 to 5 of the PITA against a customer but allowed the trial to proceed under Section 370A(2) IPC. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge sheet lacks ingredients for Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the PITA. However, the Court below may continue with the trial for the offence under Section 370-A(2) IPC."
15. The above observations support the conclusions in the present petition and distinguish the precedents cited by the petitioner. As per the record, the trial court took cognizance of all offences referred by the investigating agency. For the aforesaid reasons, the cognizance of offence under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the PITA against the petitioner is groundless quashment of the cognizance order to that extent is found justified and appropriate. Nonetheless, as there exists a prima facie case, the cognizance under Section 370-A(2) IPC/BNS, 2023, stands and is sustainable.
Conclusion:
16. The Criminal Petition is partly allowed. The cognizance order to the extent of the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PITA in Sessions Case No. 233 of 2024, pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kushaiguda, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, is hereby quashed. However, the cognizance 9 NTR,J Crlp_3700_2025 order with respect to Section 370-A(2) IPC / Section 144 of BNS, 2023, shall remain valid for further proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed.
_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date:25-04-2025 ccm/svl