Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
Pasupula Ram Manohar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 October, 2025 cites

Mohammad Riyaz vs The State Of Telangana on 27 June, 2018

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.
Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Padala Venkata Sai Rama Reddy vs The State Andhra Pradesh on 29 November, 2021

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.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - C M Roy - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar Chowdary, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 August, 2022

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.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - N Jayasurya - Full Document

S.Naveen Kumar @ Naveen vs The State Of Telangana,Rep. By Public ... on 28 April, 2015

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.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 30 - U D Rao - Full Document

Naveen Krishna Bothireddy vs State Of Telangana And Another on 20 January, 2017

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.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 55 - Cited by 2 - B S Rao - Full Document
1