Telangana High Court
Pulipati Srihari vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 8 August, 2022
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6806 OF 2022
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6807 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:-
1. The person who is figured as Accused No.9 in Crime No.715 of 2022 of Madhapur Police Station, moved Criminal Petition No.6806 of 2022 and the person who is figured as Accused No.11 in the same case, moved Criminal Petition No.6807 of 2022, seeking quash of the proceedings that are pending against them.
2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.9 & 11 as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell as per the version of the Prosecuting Agency is that on 19.07.2022, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Madhapur Police Station, received credible information regarding the prostitution that is being organized and carried out at 'Deekshitha Saloon and Spa', Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District. On that, making a General Diary (GD) entry and obtaining permission from the superior officer, the said Sub- Inspector of Police visited the said saloon along with his staff. On interrogation, the person present at the reception, besides 2 Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.6806 and 6807 of 2022 revealing his identity particulars, also informed that under the instructions of one S.V.Raja Ram Prasad, a brothel house is being run. The petitioners/A-9 & A-11 were found indulged in sexual intercourse with the girls present at two different rooms. On that a search-cum-seizure panchanama was prepared and the incriminating material, which includes, cash, cellphone, condoms, etc., were seized.
4. Making a submission that the petitioners have not committed any offences what so ever, more particularly, the offences punishable under Sections 3 to 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases contended that the petitioners are innocent. Learned counsel also stated that the allegations made are absurd and inherently improbable. The learned counsel stated that no prudent person can never reach a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners and indeed, the police deliberately impleaded the petitioners in this case and hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that as the petitioners were caught red handed while being involved in sexual intercourse with the victims, a case was 3 Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.6806 and 6807 of 2022 booked against them and indeed, there is sufficient material to show that they are customers and thus, on completion of investigation, final report would be filed.
6. Whether a customer would fall within the ambit of the provisions of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act or not was extensively dealt with by this Court in the decision that is rendered in Criminal Petition No.5999 of 2022 dated 11.07.2022 (by Hon'ble Dr.Justice Chillakur Sumalatha). In the said decision, the observations of the Court, more particularly, at Paras 10 to 13, are as under:-
"10. Section 3 of the Act, 1956 prescribes punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing the premises to be used as brothel. Section 4 of the Act, 1956, prescribes punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. Likewise, Section 5 of the Act, 1956, prescribes punishment for procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution. Therefore, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, those provisions does not attract to the customer who approaches a brothel house or a woman in prostitution. Thus, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner- Accused No.4, even as per the version of prosecution who is the customer, under the provisions of Sections 3 to 5 of the Act, 1956 is un-desirable. However, Section 370-A IPC prohibits exploitation of traffic in person. The said provision reads as under:4
Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.6806 and 6807 of 2022 "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."
11. Thus, by the above provisions, it is clear that whoever knowingly or having reason to believe that a minor or a person has been trafficked, engages such minor or person for sexual exploitation, shall be punished.
12. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Goneka Sajan Kumar Vs State of A.P1 and in the case of Z. Lourdiah Naidu and another Vs State of A.P2
13. In the case on hand, the acts committed by the petitioner-Accused No.4 as per the contents of charge sheet squarely fall within the ambit of Section 370-A
(ii) IPC."
7. Thus, by the above decision, it is clearly indicated that Sections 3 to 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act does not attract the customers. However, Section 370-A IPC attracts. 1 (2014) 2 ALD (Cri) 264 2 (2013) 2 ALD (Cri) 393 5 Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.6806 and 6807 of 2022 Indicating the same view, the Criminal Petitions are disposed of. The Investigating Officer shall take note of the fact that Sections 3 to 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act does not cover the acts of the customers who are found involved in the acts pertaining to which the Prevention of Immoral Trafffic Act is legislated. However, the customers would fall within the ambit of Section 370-A IPC. Therefore, in case, convincing material is found attracting the said provision, the Investigating Agency can proceed with the filing of final report on completion of investigation in respect of the said provision or in respect of any other provisions, except the provisions covered under Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act.
8. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Dated.08.08.2022 ysk 6 Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.6806 and 6807 of 2022 THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6806 OF 2022 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.6807 OF 2022 Dated.08.08.2022 7 Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.6806 and 6807 of 2022 ysk