Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Crl.P.No.2572 of 2014:

The petitioners who are accused Nos.3 and 4 out of 6 accused in C.C.No.95 of 2014 on the file of the Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Erramanzil, Hyderabad outcome of Cr.No.1032 of 2013 of Panjagutta, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ITP Act) registered on the complaint of Y.Prakash Reddy, Inspector of Police, Commissioners Task Force, West Zone Team, Hyderabad-complainant herein; filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.95 of 2014.

Crl.P.No.2853 of 2014:

3.The petitioners who are accused Nos.4 and 5 out of 5 accused in Cr.No.22 of 2014 of Bowenpally Police Station, Hyderabad registered on 26/27.01.2014 at 0.30 hours by L.W.8 Thimmappa, Sub Inspector of Police for the offences punishable under Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ITP Act) on the report with enclosed panchanama as basis for it conducted by R.B.Rangaiah, Inspector of Police(L.W.9), Bowenpally Police Station, and for the remand of the petitioners among A.3 to A.5 vide remand report dated 27.01.2014 from which the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for Excise Cases, at Erramanzil, Hyderabad, taken them to judicial custody for the offences supra, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
14) No doubt, from the decisions supra, Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act no way applicable so far as the customers concerned. If any of them indulge in sexual enjoyment with the sex worker respectively and for any of them keeping or allowing premises as brothel house or habitually found in the company of sex workers or living on that earnings or detaining any person to carry prostitution or such premises within the notified and prohibited area it attracts any of Sections 3 to 11 of the ITP Act besides sections 370 and 370-A of I.P.C. The alleged occurrences were after the Amendment by Act 13/2013 to the IPC and the Schedule of Cr.P.C. which came into force with effect from 03.12.2013 incorporating Sections 370 and 370-A of I.P.C. Needless to say the same is prospective in operation as observed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4193 of 2015 dated 20.07.2015 between Saleh Mahfooz Vs. State of Telangana. As observed in Salehz Supra, once Section 370 and 370-A IPC applies, leave about any application of Section 371 against any of the accused that too when the investigation is pending, there are no grounds to quash the respective crime proceedings much less to stay investigation. Further even coming to C.C.Nos. 95 of 2014 and 322 of 2012 concerned, merely because Sections 370 and 370-A IPC not mentioned in the police final reports or cognizance orders that is not by itself a ground to quash the case proceedings, but for to seek, for discharge if no grounds to frame charge before concerned Court to decide on own merits with reference to above penal provisions. Needless to say if it is a case for committal before the Court of Sessions any plea for discharge to arise.

15. In the result, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that these observations will no way prejudice the rights of any of the petitioners or others in all the criminal petitions. In Crl.P.Nos.2853 of 2014, 3995 of 2014 and 4983 of 2014 in the event of police filing final reports or any cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate, either to seek for discharge from any of the penal provisions in the Act and IPC respectively before concerned trial Court to consider on own merits including the scope of Sections 370, 370-A and 371 IPC besides Sections 2 to 11 of the ITP Act. In Crl.P.Nos. 2572 of 2014 and 10094 of 2015 since final reports filed and numbered as Calender Cases, to seek for discharge any of the penal provisions in the Act and IPC respectively to consider on own merits within the scope of Sections 370, 370-A and 371 IPC and Sections 2 to 11 of the ITP Act.