The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in S.C. No. 541 ol 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Medchal till disposal of the criminal petition in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing lhe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Srr S AKHILESH REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. JITHENDER FIAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6217 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') seeking quashment of proceedings against the petitioners tn Sessions Case No. 541 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal- t\Ialkajgiri District at lvledchal

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Ncls.2 and 3 in the Sessions Case, charged for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 370(l\) of the lndian Penal Code,1860 (for short, 'lPC') and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the lmmoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, 'PITA').

3. I have heard Mr. S. Akhilesh Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 -State

4. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 16.03.2023 the Police on credible information of organizing brothel house 2 NTR,.I ()1p 6217 2O25 surprised the Plot No.67, H.No.04-085/678, Siriven Enclave, Gajularamaram at 14'.15 hours and found the pelitioners along with a woman/victim. Upon due proceedings the :omplaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.211 of 2023 has beren registered Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheei was Iaid and consequently, the Sessions Case was numbererl vide S.C. No 541 o'f 2023 on the file of the learned Principerl Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal-N4itlkajgiri District, at Medchal

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would s;ubmit that as per the complaint and even in the charge sheet the petitioners are projected as only customers. The record of pros=cution is not disclosing that the petitioners have knowledge tl 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 1639 of 2025 and concluded that the allegations would nc)t make out a case against the customer under any of the arra gned Sections Thus, prayed for intervention and to quash ttre proceedings against the petitioners - 3 N'IR,J Ctlp 6217 2025

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the fact of the petitioners being customers 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 customers

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 petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are found along with the victim in a room at a place arranged by the organizer/accused No.'1 and as customers availing service by paying certain amount Even as per the victim, she has volunteered subject to payment through the other accusedi 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 4 N', t,.t t.:r\) 6217 202r

370. Traffrcking of person.-('l)Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (€) receives, a person or persons, by- Firstly. usrng threats, or Secondly - using force, or any other form of coerc on, or Thirdly - by abduction, or Fourthly. - by practising fraud, or deception, or Frfthly - by abuse of power, or Sixthly - by inducement, including the g vrn(t or recerving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the corsent of any person having control over the person recruited, tranlForted, harboured, transferred or recerved, commrts the offence of traFficking Explanation 1 -The expression "exploitation" shitll include any act ot physical exploitatron or any form of sexual exFloitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servrtude, or the f,)rced removal of orga ns Explanatron 2.-The consent of the victim s immateriai rn determination of the offence of tGfficking (2) Whoever commits the offence of trafficking sh r be punished wrth rlgorous imprisonment for a term which shall noi b: less than seven years but whrch may extend to ten years, and sllall also be liable to frne. (3) Where the offence tnvolves the trafftcking o' more than one person, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprlscrnment for a term whrch shall not be less than ten years but whicl may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to frne. (4) Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, tt shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term vrhich shall n![ bE 5 NTR,J Crlp 62li 2025 less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life' and shall also be liable to flne (5) Where the offence involves the traffrcking of more than one minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than fourteen years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to flne (6) lf a person is convicted of the offence of trafficking of minor on more than one occasion, then such person 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. (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 punrshed with imprisonment for life, which shall mean 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 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 trafficked, engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term whrch shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to f,ne. (r NTR,.] t t1t, 6217 2r)25

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 indttcement offered through the manager/accused/organizer, who tr turn collects payment from the customer. This situation is derrtlnstrating that the victim's consent was obtained in exchang e for financial benefit. Prina facie, this factual position qualifies, recruitment of the victim for the purpose of exploitation, as clefined under Section 370(1) of the lPC. Procuring a person vri:h consent for the purpose of prostitution would be within the sccpe of Section 5 of the PITA. Therefore, this scenario leads to the ccnclusion that the victim is a trafficked person.

11. lt is a settled legal principle that intention or krowledge can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances n the instant case, as per the accusations, the petitioners obtairtt:d the victim's consent for a sexual act through payment made trt the manager, who was involved in trafficking. Additionally, tl-,e petitioners engaged in a sexual act with an unknown victirn in unrelated premises arranged by the manager. The act of securing consent by making payment supports the inference that the petitioners had knowledge that the victim was a trafficked Perlgl: I I i

1. i ! I w 7 N'TR,J Crlp 62t7 2025

12. ln these circumstances, subject to proof of the allegations at trial, the actions of the petitioners may constitute exploitation of a trafficked person under Section 370-4(2) of the IPC (or Section 144 ol 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 request to quash the proceedings at this stage under Sections 370, 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 8 N'IR,J Crlp 6'217 .2025

14. Furthermore, a coordinate bench of this Cotrrl, 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 'I As discussed above, the petrtioner her€,r: is a customer. Therefore, the contents of the charge sheet laok the ingredients necessary to attract Sectrons 3, 4, and 5 of the )1fA. A customer ol flesh trade cannot be treated as an offender unce these provisions. There iS no allegation that the pelitioner rec rLrited, kansported, harboured, transferred, or received any perscn f)r the purpose of exploitation ln Mohammad Riyaz v. The Stak. of Telangana lhe Hrgh Court of Telangana and Andhra Prade: h reFerring to the pnnciples lard down rn S. Nayeen Kumar a)a Vinod @ WFy thagubha Patel v. State of Gularat [2017 (4) C t I 2804], quashed the proceedings under Section 370 IPC and Se:t ons 3 to 5 of the PITA agarnst a customer but allowed the tfla 1o proceed under Section 3704(2) lPC. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge sheet lacks ingredients for Sectto rs 3, 4. and 5 of the PITA. However, the Court below may continue ,\,r h the trial for the offence under Section 370-A(2) lPC."

15. The above observations support the conr;lusions in the present petition and distinguish the precedents cited by the petitioners. As per the record, the trial Court took oognizance of all offences referred by the investigating agoncy. For the aforesaid reasons, the cognizance of offences unrierr Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the PITA, against the petitioners ale) groundless, quashment of the cognizance order to that extent is lound justified .and appropriate. Nonetheless, as there exists a prtna facie case, -* 9 NTR,.J Crlp 6217 2025 the cognizance under Sections 370, 370(4) IPC/BNS, 2023, stands and are 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. 541 of 2023, pending on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at tvledchal, is hereby quashed. However, the cognizance order with respect to Sections 370, 370(A) IPC/BNS, 2023, shall remain valid for further proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, in accordance with law. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications if any, stands closed /ffRUE COPY'/ SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal' Cyberabad' Medchal District.

2. The Station House Officer, Jeedimetla Police Station' Cyberabad' 3 One CC to SRl. S AKHILESH REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies '#' HIGH COURT DATED:02105t2025 i ORDER CRLP.No.6217 of 2025 ,.; c--) \ i. .1, \: 2 ,' riir ;,xff THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED q