Prosecutor High Court · 2025

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N' TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETI TtoNNo.3688of 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita' 2023 (fot short' 'BNSS') seeking quashment of proceedings in Crime No'451 of 2024 of Panjagutta Police Station' Hyderabad District'

2. The petitioners are accused Nos'2 and 3 charged for the offences under Section 370 and 370(A) of lndian Penal Code.1860 (for short,'lPC') and Sections 3' 4 and 5 of the lmmoral Traf{ic (Prevention) Act' 1956 (for short' 'PITA')' I have heard Mr' P' Ravi' learned counsel for the petitioners 3. and Mr Jithender Rao Veeramalla' learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents -State'

4. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 07 O2'2O23 the police on credible information of organizing brothel house surprised the Plot No 102, First Floor' Zore Compelx' Erramanzil' Hyderabad and found*tS: at Pillar No.1 127, Panjagutta' petitioners along with a woman' Upon the due Proceedings the I ! I I t t I I l ) ,, 2 NTR.J Cdp 3648 2025 complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.451 of 2024 has been registered-

5. Learned counsel for the petitionerfwould submit that as per the complaint and even in the charge sheet the petitioners are projected as only customers. The record of prosecution is not disclosing that the petitioners have knowledge of trafficking or their involvement in any manner in organizing the prostitution. A coordinate bench of this Court had considered the similar allegations in Criminal Petition Nos. 1647 of 2025 and 1 639 of 2025 and concluded that the allegations would not make out a case against the customer under any of the arraigned sections. Thus prayed for intervention and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the fact of the petitioners being customers is not in dispute. He further fairly submitted that a crordinate bench of this Court has considered similar issue and favourably concluded that the charges c€rnnot be sustained against the customers I t I I I I I I i I I i I i i l I 3 NTT,J Crlp-3666-2o25 rF 7 . I have carefully perused the materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsel'

8. The prosecution allegation against the petitioners ex facie is that the petitionersi accused Nos'2 and 3 are found along with thevictiminaroomataplacearrangedbytheorganizer/other accused and as customer availing service by paying certain amount

9. This factual position needs examination within the meaning of Section 370 of l P.C , which is defining trafficking of a person' For better appreciation, Section 370 of l'P'C' is extracted hereunder 370 Traffickrng 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- Frrstly - usrng threats, or Secondly - usrng torce or any other form of coerclon. or ThirdlY - bY abduction, or Fourthly - by practising fraud, or deception' or Frfthly - bY abuse of Power' or Srxthly - by rnducement' including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits. in order to achieve the consent of any person I l ! i I I 4 NTR,J Crlp 3688_2025 having control over the person recruit€d, transfiered or received, commits the otfence of trafficking. transported, harboured, Explanation 1.-The expression "exploitation" shall include any act of physical exploitation or any fotm of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the ficrc€d removal of organs. Explanation 2.-The consent of the viclim is immaterial in determination of the offenceof tramcking. (2) Whoever commits the offence of trafficking shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shalt 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 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. (4) Where the offence involves the trafncking of a minor, it shatt be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for hfe, and shall also be liable to fine. (5) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one mrnor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term whrch shall not be less than fourteen years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also te liable to fine. (6) lf a person is convicted of the offence of trafFrcking of mrnor on more than one occasion, {hen srch person shall be punished w(h rmprrsonment for life, which shall fiean irnprasonment For the remainder of that person's flatural life, and shall also be liable to tine i I i t I I i L I 5 NTR,J Crtp 3684_2025 (7) When a public servant or a police olficer is involved in the trafficking of any person then, such public servant or police officer shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

3704. Exploitation of a tratficked 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 punrshed with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than frve 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 p€rson 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

10. A careful reading of the provision in juxtaposition with the circumstances narrated in the instant case is making out that the victim consented to the act due to a monetary inducement offered through the manager/accused/organizer, who in turn collects payment from the customer. This situation is demonstrating that the victim's consent was obtained in exchange for financial benefit. Prima facie. this factual position qualifies recruitment of the victim for the purpose of exploitation, as defined under-J 6 NTR,J Crlp_3688 2025 Section 370(1) of the lPC. Procuring a person with consent for the purpose of prostitution would be within the scope of Seclion 5 of the PITA. Therefore, this scenario leads to the conclusion that the victim is a trafficked person.

11. lt is a settled legal principle that intent'lon or knowledge can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. ln the instant case, as per the acrusations the petitioner obtained the victim's consent for a sexual act through payment made to the manager, who was involved in trafficking. Additionally, the petitioner engaged in a sexual act with an unknown victim in unrelated premises arranged by the manager. The act of securing consent by making payment supports the inference that the petitioner had knowledge that the victim was a trafflcked person.

12. ln these circumstances, subject to proof of the allegations at trial, the actions of the pelitioners may constitute exploitation of a trafficked person under Section 370-lA of the IPC (or Section 144 of the BNS, 2023). Accordingly, the prosecution's allegations require judicial examination during trial, and any premature conclusion that the allegations do not establish an offence against the petitioners would be premature and improper' Therefore, the 7 NTR.J Crlp_3688 2025 request to quash the proceedings at this stage under Sections 370 and 370-4 of the IPC/BNS, 2023 is unsustainable

13. Howsoever, Section 3 of the PITA deals with the offence of keeping or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Section 4 prescribes punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution, and Section 5 relates to procuring or inducing a person for prostitution. ln the instant case, there is no allegation in the complaint, or in the witnesses statements, or in the other prosecution record suggesting that the petitioners were involved in organizing or managing prostitution. Therefore, applying these provisions to the petitioners would be unwarranted.

14. Furthermore, a coordinate bench of this Court, in Crl.P. No. 2976 oi 2022, by order dated 06.06.2022. after analyzing similar facts and related precedents, observed in paragraph g as follows: '9. As discussed above the petrtroner herein is a customer. Therefore, the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients necessary to attract Sectrons 3 4, and 5 of the PITA A customer of flesh trade cannot be treated as an offender under these provisions. There is no allegahon that the petitroner recruiled, transported, harboured, transferred. or recelved any person for the purpose of exploitation ln Mohammad Rtyaz v The State of Telangana, the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, referring to the principles laid down rn S Nayee, Kumar and Vinod @ Vijay Ahagubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat 12017 (4) cLR 28041, qraS6eA- Ll j I ! I : i , a 't , r i i a- t i r t I I I 8 NTR,J Crlp-36a4-2025 the proceedings under Sec{bn 370 IPC and Sections 3 b 5 of the PITA against a custorner but allowed the trial to proceed under Section 37OA(2) lPC. Hence, this Court is of the considered oPinion that the charge sheet lacks ingredients for Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the PITA However, the Court below may continue with the trial for the offence under Section 370-,4(2) lPC.'

15. The above observations support the conclusions in the present petition and distinguish the precedents cited by the petitioner. As per the record, the trial court took cognizance of all offences referred by the invesligating agency' For the aforesaid reasons, the cognizance of offence under Sections 3,4, and 5 of the PITA against the petitioners is groundless quashment of the cognizance order to that extent is found justified and appropriate' Nonetheless, as there exists a prima facie case, the cognizance under Sections 370 and 370-4 IPC/BNS, 2023, stands and is sustainable Conclusion:

16. The Criminal Petition is partly allowed' The cognizance order to the extent of the offences under Sections 3' 4 and 5 of the PITA in Crime No.451 of 2024 of Panjagutta Police Station' Hyderabad, is hereby quashed. However, the cognizance older with respect to Sections 370 and 37OA IPC / Section 143 and i II I i I 9 NTR,J Crlp 3688-2025 144 ot BNS, 2023, shall remain valid for further proceeding against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in accordance with law. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed \ I I i To, ,/TRUE COPY// I Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL UTY REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER

1. The XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to Nampally' Hyderabad' 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Paniagutta' Hyderabad' 3. One CC to (TC Legal LLP) SRl. P RAVI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. Two CD CoPies GE/RAS / l I i i I I l HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 ORDER CRLP.No.3688 of 2025 R l rtE S rai L ) rC -t. 1E AUE 20fr ,) ,i. y' Sq,.,_r THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED. / /, ,/r, I I I l / I I I 1 ! i I I l I ; I I I I I E r ! r I I I , I f r , t ! :' ! : I I Itt