The High Court · 2025

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N' TUKARAMJI CRIMl NAL P ETITIO NNo.3700 ol 2o25 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita' 2023 (for short' 'BNSS') seeking quashment of proceedings in Sessions Case No'233 of 2024 onthe file of the ll Additional District and Sessions Judge' at Kushaiguda, Medchal Malkajgiri District'

2. The petitioner is accused No'3 charged for the offences under Section 370(AX2) of lndian Penal Code'1860 (for short' 'lPC') and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the lmmoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, 'PITA')' I have heard Ms'saggala Srivani' learned counsel for the 3. petitioner and Mr' Jithender Rao Veeramalla' learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State'

4. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 07'02'2023 the police on credible information of organizing brothel house., surprised the Plot No'62' Sri Sai Krishna Nagar Colony' ne4 KCR Nagar, Ramanthapur and found the petiti'oner along with a 2 NTR,J Ctlp 37OO_2O25 woman/victim. Upon the due proceedings the complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.162 of 2A23 has been registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the complaint and even in the charge sheet the petitioner is projected as only customer. The record of prosecution is not disclosing that the petitioner has knowledge of trafficking or his involvement in any manner in organizing the prostitution. A coordinate bench of this Court had considered the similar allegations in Criminal Petition Nos.t647 ot 2O2S and 1639 of 2O25 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 petitioner.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the fact of the petitioner being customer is not in dispute. He further fairly submitted that a coordinate bench of this Court has considered similar issue and favourably concluded that the charges cannot be sustained against the customer_ J NTR,J Crlp_3700 2025 I

7. I have carefully perused the materials on record and the submissions of the leamed counsel.

8. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner ex facie is that the petitioner/accused No.3 is found along with the victim in a room at a place arranged by the organizer/other accused and as customer availing service by paying certain amount. Even as per the victim, she has volunteered subject to payment through the other accused/management.

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. Trafficking of person.-11) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits. (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by- Firstly. - using threats, or Secondly. - using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly. - by abduction. or Fourthly - by prachsing fraud' or dec€ption, or Fifthly. - by abuse of Power, or Sixthly - by rnducement. includrng the giving -or*receiving of payments or benefrts, in order to achieve the consent of any person l'l] :r--" 4 I{TR,J CtIp 37OO 2025 having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transfened or received, commits the offence of traftcking. Explanation 1.-The expression "exploitation', shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or praclices 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 (2) Whoever mmmits the offence of tratfickrng shalt be punished vyith rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall atso be liable to fine. (3) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one person, it shall be punishable with rigorous rmprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment frcr life, and sha also be liabte to fine (4) Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shalt be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to rmprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine (5) Where the offence involves the traffickrng of more than one mrnor, it Shall be punishable with rigorous rmprisonment for a term which shall not be less than fourteen years, but whrch may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be fiable to fine (6) lf a person is convrcted of the offence of traffickrng of minor on more than one occasion, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for life, whrch shall mean impasonment for the remainder of that person's naturat Irfe, and sha also be lable to fine. t. I b 5 NTR,J Crlp-37OO2025 (7) When a public servant or a police offrcer is involved in the trafficking of any person then, such public servant or police officer shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall rnean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine. 370A. Exploitation of a trafficked 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 punished with rigorous imprisonrnent 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 trafficked. engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished wrth 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. Pima facie, this factual position qualifies recruitment of the victim for the purpose of exploitation' as defined undea t 1 6 NTR,J Crlp 37OO 2025 Section 370(1) of the lPC, Procuring a person with consent for the purpose of prostitution would be within the scope of Section 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 intention or knowledge can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. ln the instant czrse, as per the accusations 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 trafficked person.

12. ln these circumstances, subject to proof of the allegations at trial, the actions of the petitioner may constitute exploitation of a trafficked person under Section 370-A(2) 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 petitioner would be premature and improper. Therefore, the E NTR.J Crlr^ 37oo 2025 request to quash the proceedings at this stage under Section 370-A 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 petitioner was involved in organizing or managing prostitution. Therefore, applying these provisions to the petitioner would be unwarranted-

14. Furthermore, a coordinate bench of this Court, in Crl'P. No' 2976 of 2022, by order dated 06-06.2022, after analyzing similar facts and related precedents, observed in paragraph 9 as follows: 19 As discussed above, the pet(ioner herein is a customer' Therefore, the contents of the charge sheet lack the rngredients necessary to attract Sectrons 3, 4, and 5 of the PITA. A customer of flesh trade c€nnot be treated as an offender under these provisions' There is no allegation that the petitioner recrurted, transPorted, harboured, transferred, or received any person for the purpose of expbitation ln Mohammad Riyaz v The State ot Telangana, the High Courl of Teiangana and Andhra Pradesh referring to the principles laid down in S Naveen Kumar and Vinod @ viY _ Bhagubhai Patel v. State ot Gujarat 12017 (4) GLR 28041' quashed i I t I I I ! I I l i 8 NTR,J CrIp_37OO 2025 the proceedings under Section 370 IPC and Sections 3 to 5 of the PITA against a customer but allowed the trial to proceed under Section 370A(2) lPC. Hence, this Court is of the mnsidered opinion that the charge sheet lacks ingredients frcr Sections 3, 4, and S of the PITA. However, the Court below may continue with the trial for the offence under Section 370-A(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 investigating agency. For the aforesaid reasons, the cognizance of offence under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the PITA against the petitioner 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 Section 370-A(2) IPC/BNS, 2023, stands and is sustainable- Conc lusion: '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 Sessions Case No. 233 ol 2024, pending before the ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kushaiguda, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, is hereby quashed. However, the cognizance 9 NTR,J Crlp_3 700_2025 order with respect to Section 370-A(2) IPC / Section 144 of BNS, 2023, shall remain valid for fu(her proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed. ,/TRUE COPY" =iSiIREBii'#k SECTION OFFICER at LB Nagar' 1 . The Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate' Medchal Malkaigiri District' Uppal 2. The station House officer, porice Station Uppal, Rachakonda District' .. O* CC to Ms'SAGGALA SRIVANI' Advocate [OPUCI ll iu":*::m:rul"yrt|c PRosEcuroR' Hish court for the state of \ To, 5- Two CD CoPies I t I HIGH COURT DATED:25/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3700 ot2O25 CRIMINAL PETTTION TS PARTLY ALT,OWED. r. i ';E Sr4 ,) r€ () '!) o. a+ 10 rlJ6 2u5 -r'r,,_ -_a__ r -r 11 <)t 1\ . rl ' ,l -,,: ,. / //, / i I