Telangana High Court
Thanna Bharagav Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 11 July, 2022
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
* HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.5999 of 2022
% 11.07.2022
# Thanna Bharagav Kumar, S/o.T.Venkata Ramana,
Aged about 26 yrs, Occu : Junior Engineer in SCR,
Bellampally, R/o.STC Hostel, Tarnaka,
Hyderabad, N/o.H.No.40-210, Naidu Colony,
Bobbili, Vijayanagaram, A.P.
.. Petitioner/Accused No.4
And
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad & another
.. Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : 1. Sri Tera Rajinikanth Reddy,
Counsel for respondents : Assistant Public Prosecutor
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Citations:
1. (2014) 2 ALD (Cri) 264
2. (2013) 2 ALD (cri) 393
Dr.CSL, J
-2- Crl.P.No.5999 of 2022
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
********
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5999 of 2022
Between :
Thanna Bharagav Kumar, S/o.T.Venkata Ramana,
Aged about 26 yrs, Occu : Junior Engineer in SCR,
Bellampally, R/o.STC Hostel, Tarnaka,
Hyderabad, N/o.H.No.40-210, Naidu Colony,
Bobbili, Vijayanagaram, A.P.
.. Petitioner/Accused No.4
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad & another
.. Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 11.07.2022
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes / No
may be allowed to see the Judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes / No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : Yes / No
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
Dr.CSL, J
-3- Crl.P.No.5999 of 2022
HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5999 of 2022
ORDER:
Seeking to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022 before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, the present criminal petition is filed.
2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of his submissions contended that petitioner cannot be punished either under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956') or under the provisions of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is unsustainable.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor stated that the presence of the petitioner was clearly found by the police at the scene of offence and Dr.CSL, J -4- Crl.P.No.5999 of 2022 therefore, he was taken into custody and thus the proceedings are sustainable.
5. The facts of the case in nutshell as could be perceived through the contents of charge sheet are that the Accused Nos.1 and 3 are known to each other. Accused No.3 used to supply women to Accused No.1. The Accused No.1 took a flat at Bapujinagar, Nacharam on a monthly rent of Rs.5000/- and was running a brothel house. Accused No.2 used to assist Accused No.1. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were earning through prostitution. Accused No.1 was paying Rs.100/- to the Accused No.2 for each customer brought by him. The Accused No.3 supplied the victim girl and he also sent one customer i.e., the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as Accused No.4, to the flat of Accused No.1 on 22.09.2021. On credible information police conducted raid and apprehended Accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner herein-Accused No.4 and also the victim girl.
6. Basing on the above set of facts, the Inspector of Police, Nacharam Police Station, Rachakonda District submitted charge sheet contending that the Accused Nos.1, Dr.CSL, J -5- Crl.P.No.5999 of 2022 2 and 4 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 370 (A) (ii) of IPC and Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Act, 1956.
7. As earlier narrated, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-Accused No.4 is that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner would not fall either within the purview of provisions contained in Indian Penal Code or under the provisions of the Act, 1956.
8. Under Article 23 of the Constitution of India, traffic in human beings is prohibited. In the year 1950, the Government of India ratified an international convention for the suppression of traffic in person and prevention of exploitation of women through prostitution. Thereafter, the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 was enacted. Subsequently, the said Act has been amended. By Act, 44 of 1986, the title of the Act has been changed from Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act to Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. Further, for the words "women and girls" and "women or girl", the words "persons" and "person" have respectively Dr.CSL, J -6- Crl.P.No.5999 of 2022 been substituted. Thus, the Act now prohibits traffic in human beings.
9. Though, the word trafficking is not specifically defined in the Immoral Traffic (prevention) Act, 1956, we can find such a definition in Section 370 of IPC. The said provision reads as under :
"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--
First --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 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 Dr.CSL, J -7- Crl.P.No.5999 of 2022 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.
....
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 :
"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.
Dr.CSL, J -8- Crl.P.No.5999 of 2022 (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. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the proceedings for the said offence are liable to be continued. No other ground is urged or established by the petitioner basing on which the proceedings can be quashed. Therefore, this 1 (2014) 2 ALD (Cri) 264 2 (2013) 2 ALD (Cri) 393 Dr.CSL, J -9- Crl.P.No.5999 of 2022 Court considers it desirable to allow this criminal petition in part.
14. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed-in-part. The proceedings that are pending against the petitioner- Accused No.4 before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act, 1956 are hereby quashed. The proceedings against the petitioner-Accused No.4 shall however be continued in the said P.R.C., as far as the offence punishable under section 370-A (ii) IPC is concerned.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J 11th July, 2022 Note : L.R.Copy to be marked B/o.
Rds