Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Danda Vema Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 October, 2025
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
1
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRLP.Nos.8675, 2502 and 3680 of 2022,
CRLP.Nos.583, 1190, 1267, 1959, 4501, 5957, 6681, 6814, 6883 & 8366 of
2023,
CRLP.No.32, 1417, 2590 & 4041 of 2024,
and CRLP.No.878 of 2025
% 31.10.2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8765 of 2022
# Vasanthavada Raghubabu and Others ... Petitioners
Vs.
$ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor
.... Respondent
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju Counsel for the respondent : Public Prosecutor AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2502 of 2022 # Vankayalapati Srinivasa Rao ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor .... Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Raja Reddy Koneti Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor 2 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3680 of 2022 # Pathan Rahmath Alikhan @ Rahath Ali Khan ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor ... Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Venkata Durga Rao Anantha Counsel for the respondent : Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL PETITION NO.583 of 2023 # Pasupula Ram Manohar ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor ... Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M Venkateswarla Reddy Counsel for the respondent : Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1190 of 2023 # Danda Vema Reddy and Another ... Petitioners Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor ... Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Srinivasa Rao Puli Counsel for the respondent : Public Prosecutor 3 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1267 of 2023 # Korada Raja babu ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor ... Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Vijaya Kumar Sata Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1959 of 2023 # SHAIK AJMATULLA ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor & Another, .... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Sivaji Rachamanti Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4501 of 2023 # Pendyala Bala Sudhakar ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, .... Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.D. Phani Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 4 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5957 of 2023 # P. Srinivasulu ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor and another .... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri C. Prakash Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6681 of 2023 # Mohammed Ismail ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor & Another, .... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6814 of 2023 # Nallamilli Rama Krishna Reddy ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, .... Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N. Siva Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 5 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6883 of 2023 # Devireddy Siva Reddy and others ... Petitioners Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, .... Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri G.Srinivasulu Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8366 of 2023 # Palla Govardhan ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, .... Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.32 of 2024 # Dasari Sri Sai Naveen Dass ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, .... Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.N. Murthy Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 6 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1417 of 2024 # M. Venkata Praveen ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, .... Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2590 of 2024 # Narapureddy Naresh Raja ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor & Another, .... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Vaka Rama Krishna Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4041 of 2024 # Satish Muddana and Another ... Petitioners Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor & Another, .... Respondents 7 ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Bhargava Raju Manthina Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.878 of 2025 # Kondaveeti VSs Chaitanya ... Petitioner Vs. $ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor & Another, .... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P. Badrinath Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR <Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2015 SCC OnLineHyd 154 = {2015} 2 ALD [CRL] 156
2. Order Dated: 27-06-2018 in CRLP No.5803 of 2018.
3. Order Dated: 29-11-2021 in CRLP No.6733 of 2021.
4. Order Dated: 26-08-2022 in CRLP No.6634 of 2022.
5. Order Dated: 16-09-2022 in CRLP No.4771 of 2022.8
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRLP.Nos.8675, 2502 and 3680 of 2022, CRLP.Nos.583, 1190, 1267, 1959, 4501, 5957, 6681, 6814, 6883 & 8366 of 2023, CRLP.No.32, 1417, 2590 & 4041 of 2024, and CRLP.No.878 of 2025 Date of Reference Order Pronounced: 31.10.2025 Submitted for Approval:
SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
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 Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _____________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THIS THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRLP.Nos.8675, 2502 and 3680 of 2022, CRLP.Nos.583, 1190, 1267, 1959, 4501, 5957, 6681, 6814, 6883 & 8366 of 2023, CRLP.No.32, 1417, 2590 & 4041 of 2024, and CRLP.No.878 of 2025 COMMON REFERENCE ORDER : (Per Hon‟ble K.Suresh Reddy,J) These matters came up before us on a reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, who, while considering multitude Criminal Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [present Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023], by different petitioners in different crime numbers, vide CRLP Nos.8765 of 2022, 1190 of 2023 & 1959 of 2023, framed the following issue deemed to be of significance so as to render an authoritative verdict and directed that the same be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for an assignment to an appropriate Division Bench, for an authoritative pronouncement and to attain the finality. Pursuant thereto, Criminal Petition Nos.3680 & 2502 of 2022, 583, 1267, 10 4501, 5957, 6681, 6814, 6883 & 8366 of 2023, 32, 1417, 2590 & 4041 of 2024 and 878 of 2025 were also placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the same Reference. In pursuance thereof, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to constitute this Bench to consider and adjudicate upon the question so referred in Para 17 of said Common Order, dated: 19-04-2023 in CRLP Nos.8765 of 2022, 1190 of 2023, 1806 of 2023 & 1959 of 2023 and the said Para 17 is extracted hereunder:-
"17. Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon‟ble the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench for deciding the reference „whether, in a case registered for the offences under Sections 3 to 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, a customer can be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 370 or 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860."
2. When all these Criminal Petitions were listed before the learned Single Judge, a pivotal but quintessential was underscored and espoused by the Prosecution, wherein it was vehemently argued by the Prosecution that prima facie case against the customer under Section 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["Penal Code, 1860"] would be made out at the time when the customer(s) is/are caught red-handed by the police officials at the time of raid.
3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for Petitioners therein had submitted that a customer would not come within the purview of the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ["the Act, 11 1956"] as well as under Sections 370 and 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Catena of Judgments were placed before the learned Singe Judge, wherein after due consideration, learned Single Judge had concluded that there is an apparent conflict with the ratio rendered by the co-ordinate Single benches of this Court through (i) S. Naveen Kumar @ Naveen v. State of Telangana1; (ii) Mohammad Riyaz v. State of Telangana 2 on one side and
(i) Padala Venkata Sai Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 3;
(ii) Dinesh Kumar Chowdary v. State of A.P4; (iii) Putti Kalyan Shouri v. State of Andhra Pradesh5, on other side.
5. Sri Koneti Raja Reddy, learned Counsel leading the batch would strenuously contend that insofar as Customer is concerned, neither Section 370 of the Penal Code, 1860 nor Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, would be applicable. Further, the learned Counsel had also contented that a customer cannot be brought under the ambit of either the Act, 1956 or under Penal Code, 1860 and they are innocent and they cannot be prosecuted for sexual exploitation or trafficking.
6. Per contra, Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vociferously contended that the Customer can be prosecuted under Section 370 as well as Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, as in 1 2015 SCC OnLineHyd 154 = {2015} 2 ALD [CRL] 156 2 Order Dated: 27-06-2018 in CRLP No.5803 of 2018. 3 Order Dated: 29-11-2021 in CRLP No.6733 of 2021. 4 Order Dated: 26-08-2022 in CRLP No.6634 of 2022. 5 Order Dated: 16-09-2022 in CRLP No.4771 of 2022. 12 most of the cases, the customers were apprehended on spot by the police officials at the time of raid, and whether the case is one of attempt, or to commit an offence, or preparation, would be subject matter of trial, and ergo, this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
7. Therefore, before we dwell and adjudicate regarding the existence of conflict between aforesaid decisions, we deem it apposite and appropriate to put quietus to long-pending lis regarding "Whether a customer can be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 370 or 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?"
8. In the above backdrop, before dwelling into the issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Article 23 of the Constitution of India, which deals with "Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour" and expressly and explicitly prohibits trafficking of human beings and forced labour. That, said Article 23 of the Constitution of India is an expressly conferred Fundamental Right under Chapter III of the Constitution of India & is in consonance with innumerable International Declarations and Covenants. Article 23 is extracted hereunder:
"23. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour.--
(1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.13
(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them."
9. That, Article 23(1) of the Constitution of India expressly prohibits Trafficking of Human beings & inter alia also prohibits sexual exploitation.
10. Despite aforesaid avowed objective of preventing and prohibiting human trafficking, which also entails prohibition on sexual exploitation, yet innumerable cases of sexual exploitations, more particularly against minors and women, are seeing light of the day in an alarming manner. That, so as to prohibit and expressly tackle the trafficking, the Government of India had brought into fore "The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956" in pursuance of the International Convention signed at New York on the 9th day of May, 1950, for the Prevention of Immoral Traffic.
11. That, the same is also in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in catena of Judgments, had categorically encompassed "Right to Dignity" as also Fundamental Right under said Article 21. That, said Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking is an affront to said inviolable Fundamental Right to Dignity, which is an integral part of Right to Life enunciated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
12. Due to horrendous Rape Incident [Nirbhaya Rape Case], the entire Nation came to a standstill; stood motionless & grieved. As an aftermath of said incident, the Government of India deemed fit to amend the Penal Code, 14 1860, so as to inter alia fortify the protection of women against Sexual exploitation.
13. That, on 23-12-2012, a three-member Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice J.S. Verma, former Chief Justice of India, so as to recommend amendments to Criminal Law in order to provide expedited trial and enhanced punishments pertaining to the offences of sexual assault/ exploitation against women.
14. That, after considering & interacting with various stakeholders & after thorough deliberations, on 23-01-2013, said Committee submitted its detailed report and inter alia suggested amendments and introduction of various provisions in the then penal laws i.e., the Penal Code, 1860 [repealed by present Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [repealed by present Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023].
15. That, in pursuance of said detailed report submitted by the Committee chaired by Justice J.S. Verma, former Chief Justice of India, Section 370 (2) of the Penal Code, 1860 was amended and Section 370A of the Penal code, 1860, which inter alia deals with "Exploitation of a trafficked person" was introduced. That, insofar as Trafficking is concerned, said Report discloses that the Act, 1956, did not define trafficking comprehensively and it further recommended to criminalize employment of trafficked person. 15
16. That, ergo, the avowed objective behind introduction of Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, is to inter alia curb the menace of sexual exploitation with reference to a person who has been trafficked.
17. Section 370 of the Penal code, 1860, deals with Trafficking of Person. Section 370(1) of the Penal Code, 1860, reads as under:
"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"
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.
18. A bare perusal of Section 370 of the Penal Code, 1860, amply discloses that the said provision is punitive in nature and Section 370(1) defines the word "trafficking" in a comprehensive manner. Section 370 provides punishment in case a person, for the purpose of exploitation, either recruits, or transports or harbours, or transfers or receives a person or person by threat or force or abduction or fraud or abuse of power or inducement etc., in order to 16 achieve consent of any person having control over such person. Explanation 1 appended to said Section 370 inter alia encompasses any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs, under the ambit of "Exploitation".
19. As stated supra, Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, inter alia deals with exploitation of a trafficked person. Section 370A reads as under:
"(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 trafficked1, 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."
20. Section 370A(1) of the Penal Code, 1860 amply discloses that, 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.
17
21. Section 370A(2) of the Penal Code, 1860 amply discloses that, whoever, knowingly 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.
22. That, coming to the present issue involved, the Common Order Dated:
19-04-2023 in CRLP Nos.8765 of 2022, 1190 of 2023, 1806 of 2023 & 1959 of 2023 amply discloses that there is no iota of dispute with respect to quashment of charges under the Act, 1956 insofar as Customer is concerned, by exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The only issue, which had come into fore, is "whether a customer can be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 370 or 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ? "
23. As stated supra, Section 370 of the Penal Code, 1860 provides punishment in case a person, for the purpose of exploitation, either recruits, or transports or harbours, or transfers or receives a person or persons by threat or force or abduction or fraud or abuse of power or inducement etc., in order to achieve consent of any person having control over such person. Therefore, a customer, who is apprehended while engaging in sexual exploitation of a person who is trafficked, cannot be charged under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as Section 370 deals with trafficking of a person. 18
24. Therefore, in view of the fact that a Customer cannot be considered as an innocent victim in a flesh trade, in view of the avowed objectives enunciated in Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India; in view of express provision stipulated in Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, & in view of the fact that Penal Statutes shall be construed strictly, a Customer is liable to be prosecuted under Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, in the event the facts prima facie disclose that a customer is knowingly or having reason to believe that a person has been trafficked and having such knowledge or reason to believe, engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner. However, it is needless to state that, in the event, a customer merely visits the said premises or mere presence of such customer at the spot during any raid which indicates that they were customers who had gone to said spot, does not attract criminal liability under Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860.
25. That, as stated supra, learned Single Judge had concluded that there is an apparent conflict with the ratio rendered by the co-ordinate Single benches of this Court through (i) S. Naveen Kumar @ Naveen v. State of Telangana and (ii) Mohammad Riyaz v. State of Telangana on one side and (i) Padala Venkata Sai Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh; (ii) Dinesh Kumar Chowdary v. State of A.P; (iii) Putti Kalyan Shouri v. State of Andhra Pradesh, on other side.
26. That, in the case of Naveen Kumar @ Naveen v. State of Telangana, learned Single Judge of the erstwhile combined Court had occasion to deal 19 with the present lis. The alleged offence charged against Petitioner/Customer therein is Section 4 of the Act, 1956. After considering Section 4 of the Act, 1956 and Section 370A(2) of the Penal Code, 1860, the learned Single Judge had rightly come to a conclusion that Section 370A(2) of the Penal code, 1860 takes into fold a Customer also and consequentially quashed the proceedings under Section 4 of the Act, 1956 and in the interests of Justice and by exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the learned Single Judge directed the concerned Committal Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 370A(2) of the Penal Code, 1860.
27. In the case of Mohammad Riyaz v. State of Telangana, the alleged offences charged against Petitioner/Customer therein, who participated in Prostitution, are under Sections 370 and 370A(2) of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 to 5 of the Act, 1956. After extensively considering Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, Section 370 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 to 5 of the Act, 1956, the learned Single Judge had rightly come to a conclusion that a Customer is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 370A(2) of the Penal Code, 1860, but not under Section 370 of the Penal Code, 1860.
28. In the case of Padala Venkata Sai Rama Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which according to the learned Single Judge, is in conflict with aforesaid twin Judgments rendered by co-ordinate learned Single Judges, the Petitioner/Accused No.4 therein is a Customer. As per the charge sheet, the allegation against the Petitioner therein was that he was present at the brothel 20 house and he is the customer, who visited said premises to have sexual pleasure with a prostitute on payment of cash to her. The alleged offences charged against said Petitioner are Sections 3 to 5 of the Act, 1956 and Section 370A(2) of the Penal Code, 1860. That, it is in this specific factual context that the learned Single Judge of this Court held that as the Petitioner/ Customer therein was found to be present at the spot during the course of raid only as a customer, who visited said brothel house, no criminal liability under Section 370A(2) of Penal Code, 1860 can be fastened against said Petitioner. However, it was nowhere held that Section 370A(2) of the Penal Code, 1860 cannot be charged against a Customer.
29. In the aforesaid two Judgments i.e., (i) Naveen Kumar &(ii) Mohammed Riyaz, the facts prima facie disclose indulgment of customer in sexual exploitation, as such, Section 370A(2) of the Penal Code, 1860, was charged. However, in aforesaid case i.e., Padala Venkata Sai Rama Reddy, it can be seen that the said customer was merely found to be present at the spot as a customer.
30. As held supra, a Customer is liable to be prosecuted under Section 370A(2) of the Penal Code, 1860, in the event the facts prima facie disclose that a customer knowingly or having reason to believe that a person has been trafficked and having such knowledge or reason to believe, engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner. However, it is needless to state that, in the event, a customer merely visits the said premises or mere presence of such customer at the spot during any raid which indicates that 21 they were customers who had gone to said spot, does not attract criminal liability under Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860.
31. Therefore, in specific facts and circumstances of the case, the said case i.e., Padala Venkata Sai Rama Reddy was rightly adjudicated and there is no conflict among them.
32. In the case of Dinesh Kumar Chowdary v. State of A.P, which according to the learned Single Judge, is in conflict with aforesaid twin Judgments rendered by co-ordinate Learned Single Judges, the Petitioner/ Accused No.3 therein is a Customer who was found in nude condition in bed room with L.W.9. The alleged offences charged are under Sections 3 to 5 of the Act, 1956 and Section 370A(2) of the Penal Code, 1860. That, the distinguishing fact in this case is that said L.W.9 had categorically deposed in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 statement that L.W.9 therein had voluntarily selected prostitution due to financial problems and living on such earnings. It is in this context that, prima facie, learned Single Judge had concluded that sexual exploitation does not arise at all, as such, essential ingredients under Section 370A(2) are not met. Therefore, all charges were quashed. In similar facts and circumstances i.e., the voluntary selection of prostitution due to financial problems, the learned Single Judge had also quashed the proceedings in the case of Putti Kalyan Shouri v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
22
33. It is needless to state that while Section 370 deals with the various components of the offence of trafficking, e.g. (i) recruitment, or (ii) transportation, (iii) harbouring, (iv) transferring or (v) receiving, this new offence is meant to target those who use the entire channel of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. The offenders who are meant to be ropes in under the offence prescribed in this section are not supposed to indulge in commission of the offence of trafficking, but who are the end users for whom the entire chain of the offence of trafficking is completed. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the object of introducing Section 370(A) is to penalize the end users i.e., customer.
34. Therefore, in the considered view of this court, specific facts and circumstances shall be looked into while determining fastening of liability under Section 370A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As held supra, a Customer is liable to be prosecuted under Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, in the event the facts prima facie disclose that a customer is knowingly or having reason to believe that a person has been trafficked and having such knowledge or reason to believe, engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner. Unless those ingredients are met, a Customer cannot be prosecuted under Section 370Aof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, we are of the view that there exists no conflict.
35. Therefore, at the cost of repetition, a Customer is liable to be prosecuted under Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, in the event the facts prima facie disclose that a customer is knowingly or having reason to 23 believe that a person/minor has been trafficked and having such knowledge or reason to believe, engages such minor or person for sexual exploitation in any manner. However, it is needless to state that, in the event, a customer merely visits the said premises or mere presence of such customer at the spot during any raid which indicates that they were customers who had gone to said spot, and without meeting the essential ingredients under Sections 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, does not attract criminal liability under Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860.
36. However, one cannot lose sight over the fact that a Customer cannot be considered as an innocent victim in a flesh trade. Article 23 expressly prohibits Trafficking of Human beings &inter alia also prohibits sexual exploitation. That, Section 370A (2) of the Penal Code, 1860 amply discloses that, whoever, knowingly 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.
37. That, in order to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, the High Court is amply empowered under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the High Court, if it deems fit, may direct the concerned Magistrate to take cognizance of offence under Section 370A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in case the facts prima facie disclose that a customer knowingly or having reason to believe that a person has been trafficked and having such 24 knowledge or reason to believe, engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner, in appropriate cases.
38. In that view of the matter and in view of the aforesaid analyses, we answer the reference by holding that a Customer can be prosecuted under Section 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but not under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the event the facts prima facie disclose that a customer knowingly or having reason to believe that a minor or person has been trafficked and having such knowledge or reason to believe, engages such person/minor for sexual exploitation in any manner and the High Court, by exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can direct the concerned Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 370A of the Indian penal Code, 1860, in appropriate cases. Hence, the Reference is answered accordingly.
39. Registry is directed to place this Reference Order along with Criminal Petitions before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, so as to post the same before an appropriate Bench for adjudication in accordance with law.
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _____________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Dt :31.10.2025 LR Copy to be marked : YES GR 25 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO REFERENCE ORDER CRLP.Nos.8675, 2502 and 3680 of 2022, CRLP.Nos.583, 1190, 1267, 1959, 4501, 5957, 6681, 6814, 6883 & 8366 of 2023, CRLP.No.32, 1417, 2590 & 4041 of 2024, and CRLP.No.878 of 2025 (Per Hon‟ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date :31.10.2025 LR Copy to be marked : YES GR