Telangana High Court
Sri Papasani Mahesh vs The State Of Telangana on 15 November, 2021
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8353 of 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings in P.R.C.No.163 of 2021 on the file of the XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Rajendranagar.
2. A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner/A-3 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 370 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, with an allegation that on A-1 is organizing brothel business with the assistance of A-2 at Room No.504, Mokshagna Castle, near AIG Hospital, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District. On 17.07.2021 at about evening hours, A-1 sent the A-3 and A-4 for participate sexual intercourse with the LWs.6 to 9 and when they were in the bed rooms, at about 22.45 hours, L.W.11 along with L.Ws.1 to 3 raided in Room No.504 and caught A-2 to A-4 red handed and as well as LWs.6 to 9. After following the procedure prescribed, the police registered a case in Crime No.399 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 370 of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused, which was taken cognizance as P.R.C.No.163 of 2021.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A-3 submits that even accepting the allegations in the charge sheet to be true, the petitioner/A-3 is only a customer and not an organizer of brothel house. He further submits that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act would not be attracted to the customers, who were present at the venue, where the alleged brothel house has been running. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that petitioner/A-3 is liable for charge under Section 370A I.P.C and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. An identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in S.Naveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana1 wherein this Court, while quashing the proceedings against the customer under Section 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, directed the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 370-A IPC against the customer.
7. Further, the petitioner/A-3 was also charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 370 of I.P.C.
8. Section 370 of I.P.C. deals with trafficking of person, which reads as under:
1
(2015) 2 ALD (Crl.) 156 (AP) 3 Section 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--
1. using threats, or
2. using force, or any other form of coercion, or
3. by abduction, or
4. by practising fraud, or deception, or
5. by abuse of power, or
6. 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. The word "exploitation" is explained in explanation (1) of same section, which includes any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs and such person is liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of Section 370 of I.P.C.
9. Here, the petitioner/A-3 was not the person, who trafficked any person, for any of the purposes referred to above, but he was only a customer. Therefore, he is not liable for prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 370 of I.P.C. however, he is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 370-A (2) of I.P.C.
10. In view of the judgment referred to above and having regard to the fact that the petitioner/A-3 is only a customer, the proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and under Section 370 of I.P.C. are liable to be quashed while permitting the Magistrate concerned to proceed further against the 4 petitioner/A-3 for the offence punishable under Section 370 A (2) of I.P.C.
11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in P.R.C.No.163 of 2021 on the file of the XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Rajendranagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 370 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act only are hereby quashed while permitting the Magistrate concerned to proceed further against the petitioner/A-3 for the offence punishable under Section 370 A (2) of I.P.C.
12. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 15.11.2021 RRB