The High Court · 2025

Order

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E'V' VENUGOPAL CRIMTNAL ON No. 11850 oF 2023 o RDER: The present Criminai Petition is filed under Sectiot 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.33 ol 2023 on the file of the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad'' at HaYathnagar for the offence punishable under Section 37O(A)(ii) ol Indian Penal code' 186O, Section 3(1)(2)(4) of the Prevention of Immoral Traflic Act' 1956 and Sections 5(1)(a) and 7 of Prevention of Immoral Traftic (AmendmenL) Act' 2006' 2. Heard Mr'R'Venkatesham' learned counsel lor the petitioner and Mr'E Ganesh' learned Assistant Public Prosecu[or appearing for respondent No' 1-State' 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing' learned counsel for the petitioner contended' that the contro\rersy involved in this Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the common order dated L6.Oa.2O23 passed by this Court in Cr1'P'No'5O73 and batch and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein'

4.LearnedASSiStantPublicProsecutorfairlyConcededtothe common order dated fact that this matter is covered by the l i I i -"aiarBsi- i 2

16.08.2023 passed by this Court in Crl.p.No.5073 and batch. C/ Therefore, he seeks to pass appropriate orders. 5. In view of the said submission and for the reasons aiike in the common order dated 16.Oa.2O23 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.5O73 and batch, ar-rcl taking into account the fact that the petitioner was a customer, the proceedings against the petiticrner in p.R.C.No.3 3 of 2023 on the file ot the lcarned VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Hayathnagar, are hereby quashed 6 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is a_ilowed Mi.9:ll3l_:?-. petitions, pelding if any, shall stand closed Sd/. V HARI PRASAD DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' To, SECTION OFFICER ' [!fin#looflflir,"l1"t'ooo""n Masistrate' cvberabad at Havathnasar, ' Iffii:1t:T House officer, Vanasthalipuram Police station, vanastharipuram, 3. 9n9 CC to Sri. R Venkatesham, Advocate tOpUCI 4. gflc CC.,to the public prosecutor, High Cou( for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies. -Tt'r0 PSK /PSL YY HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 ORDER CRLP.No.11850 of 2023 o3 HES 1 ( c * ,l $t ?025 3 -tr Sli,.',iie y',t ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,t(dg & HoN,BLE SMT.IUSTTCE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINAL PETITIONT ss s 4, 6,fi;: ;;i;," rif;' ff;; ;;3;r, 687 6, ezsa, aos, azei,- iiii. -, 6772, 7058, 7.t 40 and;in:;;r:; 90_20, * ,u *, o AII the above Criminal petitions are filed to quash the rn respective proceedings against the pefitioners_accused Crimes/Calendar Cases/preliminary Register Cases (p.R.Cs)/ The details of the relevant Crimes/C.Cs/ Sessions Cases. S.Cs/P.R.Cs, offences alleged etc tabular form: ., are mendoned in the following st. No 1 Criminal Petition No. 5073 of 2023 2 6783 of2023 J 7164 of 2023 CRIMEC ASES Crime No. Accused Number Offences allegedly committed A.) A3 A5 Bt L an, 2023 o PHills oIice Sta riory Hyderabad 429 / 20n on the file of Raidurgam Police StatiorL berabad 443 ot 2021 on the file of Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda 370 ',370 (A)(2) r.P C and Sections 3, 4, 5 of Immoral Traffic (Preven tion) Act,1956 (for shorf 'the Act, 7956', 370,3 70 (A) I.P.C. and ons 3, 4, 5 of pIT Act 370 ( A)(2) I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4,5 and 7 of PITA Act 4 6957 of 2023 2 LEN AR AS D C CA A4 C.C.No.38 I of 202i on the file of I Additional Ju or ivil Judge-cum-Xl Additional MetroPolitan Magistrate' KukatPallY' Prashanthna ar E 703 Sec A) C an d PI 70 fo5dna43NS Act, 1956 PRE LIMI N REGISTER CAS ES d 370A I.P-C an Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Act, 1956 A5 370(A)(2) Sections 3, I.P.C and 4and5of Act,1956 70(A) (i)(ii) I.P C a Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Act, 1956 A3 and A4 370(4)(2) I.P.c a Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Act, 1956 5 60 of 2023 PRC NO 256 of 2O22 on the file of IV Additional MetroPolitan Magistrate H derabad 6 Ol OO of Z0Z: i.t.c.t'lo. + o12023 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Il Additional MetroPolitan Magistrate, Maika tIl P.R.C.No.18 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class trate at P-R.C.No.1116 of 2022 on the file of the XIV Additional MetroPolitan Magistrate at Prashanth Nagar, Ma 7 6110 of 2023 6299 o12023 8 9 Kuka 6932 of 2023 P.R.C.No.63 of 202 on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan trate, Ma A5 d 370(A)Q)I.P.Can Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Act 1956 J Red dy District at Kuka 10 6876 of2023 R.C.No.52 of 2023 P ,A3 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B. Nagar, Ran Redd 370( A)(2) I.P.C and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Act, 1955 11 6626 of 2023 R.C.No.72 of 2023 P on the file of the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Prashanth 72 7058 of 2023 P.R- C.No.25 of 2023 on the file of X Additional Mehopolitan Magiskate, Cyberabad, Kuka A2 c/ 0(A) (2) I.P.C and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Act, 1956 A4 370( A)(2) LP.C and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Act, 1956 L3 7140 o12023 P.R.C.No.127 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at H erabad A2 370 , 370(A)(2) r.P.c and Sections 3, 4 and 5 oI Act, 1956 SESSIONS CASES L4 5673 o12023 S.C.No.90 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions ludge Ranga Reddy District A3 15 5983 of2023 S.C.No.804 of 2019 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Ju A2 370A I.P.C arrE Sections 3 (t)e)@), and 5 (1)(a) and.7 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Amendment Act, 2006 370(A)(2\ I.P.C and Sections4and5of Act, 1956 4 Assistant Sessions Judge, L.B. Nagar S.C.No.24 of 2023 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge- cum-MetroPoIitan Sessions Judge- cum-Additional FamilY Court, Medchal-Malkaigiri District S.C.No.1752 of 20 22 on the file of XXXI Additional MetroPolitan Magistrate, KukatPallY, C berabad SC.No.aZZ of ZOZa on the file of the III Additional Senior Civii ludge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, L.B. Nagar L6 5954 ol 2023 17 6198 of 2022 18 6020 of 2023 19 6766 ot 2023 20 6282 of 2023 21 67'17 of 2023 S.C-No.890 of 2021 on the fiie of the Senior Civil judge- cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal S.C.No.1762 of 2022 on the file of XXXI Additional Metropolitan Magiskate, KukatPallY, C berabad S.C.ttlo.ZAS of ZO23 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge- curn-Assistant Sessions Judge, Kuka A2 370(A)(2) I.P.C an d Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Acr, 1956 A4 d 370(4') (2) LP.C an Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Act,1956 A3 A2 A3 -o1e; r.r.c ana Sections 3(1)(2)(a), 4 of Act, 1956 and ections 5(1)(a) &7of Prevention of Immoral TraJfic Amendment Act d 370(4)(2) I.P.C an Seciions 3, 4 and 5 of Act, 1956 d 370(4)(2) I.P.C an Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Act, 1956 ,A.4 and A5 370(A) I.P.C and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Act 1956 5

2. Heard Sri Nageshwar Rao pujari, Sri C. Rajeshwar Reddy, Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, Sri M. Anil Kumar, Sri C. Vijay Shekar Reddy, Sri K. Venumadhav, Sr. R.R. Kalyan, Sri S. Ram Reddy, Sri Tera Rajinikanth Reddy, Sri pranay Aditya Boyini, Sri Mohd. Fasiuddin, Sri Mettu Shankar, Sri Venkat Rao patil and Sri Shaik Mahammad Hussen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective petitioners and sri C. pratap Reddy, the reamed pubric Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent _ State.

3. The question involved in all these criminal petitions is one and the same and, therefore, they are being dispose d of by way of this common order.

4. In all the cases, the police Agency is the complainant and the petitioners are the customers and they are arrayed as accused.

5. The brief facts are that on reliable information, raids were conducted by the police and crimes were registered against the organisers as well as the petitioners/customers for the aforesaid offences. In some crimes, charge sheets have also been filed. 6

6. In most of the cases' the statements of the victims were recordedundersection16lCr.P.C.,aperusalofwhich,clearly discloses that due to Poverty and other family backgrounds' the victims have voluntarily joined the organization of brothel house and have given their willingness to do sex with the customers'

7. The law relating to sex work in our country is guided as per I.P.C. and Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act' 1956' The said Act was originally cailed as 'suppression of Immoral Traffic Act' 1956' and it was amended in 1986'

8. Section 2(f) of the Act' 1956 defines "prostitution" as the (or commercial purposes' sexual exploitation or abuse of Persons The act of sexual intercourse for consideration is not lllegal per se; however,theaimofthelegislation,asmadeabundantlyclearin the Act, 1956, is to inhibit or abolish commercialized vice namely' the trafficking in women and girls for the purpose of prostitution as an organized means of iiving' The Act' 1956 provides punishment to the persons maintaining a brothel house (Section 3) living on the earnings of the Prostitution (Section 4)' procuring' 7 inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution (Section 5), detaining a person in premises where prostitution is carried on (Section 6), prostitution in or in the vicinity of public place (Section 7), seducing or soliciting for purpose of prostitution (Section 8) and seduction of a person in custody (Section 9). 9. This Court ztide order dated16.04.2021 in Crl.p.No.3002 of 2021,, while dealing with the offences punishable under Sections 370(A)Q) and 188 I.p.C and Secrions 3, 4 and 5 of the Act, 1,956, has relied on the judgment in S.Naze n Kumar o. The State of Telanganar, wherein a learned Single Judge in an alike_situatiory wheie the customer aleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 370A of IpC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 ot the Act, 1956, dealt with the said provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1956, and Section 370A of IpC, and quashed the proceedings in the pRC for the offence under Section 4 of the Act, L956, but, however, directed the learned Comrnittal Magishate Court to take cognizance under Section Z70A of IpC against the petitioner_ accused No.3 therein. The observations in paragraph Nos.6, 7 and | 2015 (21ALD Crl. 156 (A.p) 8 8 of the saicl judgment are relevant and the same are extracted hereunder '6. As rightly atgucd, Section 4 basicallV. deals with the Dersonc who liaes in the enrnings of lhe pr.ostitut,ion The-refore' 'i, ti ,, ,ri omount ot' 1orc in ihe subnission of learned counsel fn, nptitioner that a customer to Jlesh trade cannot be tteated as t l*i), '" ,,n,\ar Section 4 of PIT Act This aspect was no lnore res 'llilir, tr/"i, -,",,,t't *" i''as*'nts of this High Court::':9o'nko ';:;;:;i;;;;;;' ru, s,i'" i7 ar Bor+ Q)ALD .(cri) 264t and ;!";;;;i,:;;' ;;,ii,'"'. i,''l' of Andhra Pradesh [2013 (2t ALD lg,i) lgll establish the sami Theret'ore' criminal proceedings 'ilrr"rt'i| i"irt'ioner/A3 for the offenci under Section 4 of PIT Act ie no doubt liabte lo be quashed' " ''- -;; Horoeuer,'that is not end of the matter' A perusal of the chaige sheet zoould show that tlu poiice while clurge sheeting A1 and A2 for tlrc offences uttder Sections 3' 4' 5 and 6 of PIT Act andundersection3T0AlPC,sttrprisingly.clurge.sheeted iriirirr"'rtair"ly under Section 4 of PIT Aci' but- not under T"liir" i)oa IPt. section 370A lic reads thtts: section 3704 - Erploitation of a tralficked-person ' (1) Woeuer, knooingly ot lnuing. reason to helieue that a linor has been trat'fckei''"gog" t'ih minor.,for sexual exploitation m any manner' stmtl' bi pu-nislrcd ,with.rigorotrs imorisonmenl for a term which shall not be less lhan rtae years' '{"iirir",)i,r''*.'i',;';i ;" seoen vears' end sh'su tlso be tiabte tc fine. (2) Woetter' knowingly by or hatting reoson Io bcliet-te *rt o )f,i'ron ha's been trat'fck'ld'' "'g'g" such person.,for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished. with rigorous imnrisonment for a tenn wlich shall not be less tlun thtee years' b:;i;;;;i may ,xrcna b fue years' and shatl also be liabte to fne' c) The phraieology engages such minor/such person in sub-sections (7) for sexual exploitation in oni *oni'i 'mployed 'o"i (ll irr,ion 370A IPiC in clear terms indicates thal the flesh iurto^u *ho hires the aictiru woman t'or sexual exploitation also falls uilhin the fold of Section 370A as an oflender' i, tnh be noted that in tlu wake of gang rupe of Nirbhaya in Dethi which arose an unptecedent public furore' Goaeriment considered it ft to drastically amend ssaeral proaiisions of IPC and in thit direction appointed a Committee 'under the thairmanship of late lustice l'S' Vermq the former "f 9 \o*,*,t.to.! .mo:en! that Chief lustice of India. The Commi ee after interacting cross sections of stake holders submittea i* aetiitea ,"pori'rrggntng ame n dment s and intro du c t tikerpC,c,pa,';;;;;;'iii!,'!['T"',WT;;,I:Tf ,'tr; report sub-clause (2) o/ Section 370 lpc .o, o^rrdri),nd Section 370A IpC was introiuced. Horng. ,"gprd ,"''iii"rr"."a ,U1*, with.which report was submifte; oia o*""-a*i"i* ond nr. prouisions were introduced in seueral ortr, it ,or*oi'i" presumed [:: tlr _Legislators ronriarrri-'rurto*!, o, o, mnocent aictim in the flesh trade. Therefore, Section 370A takes in ils fold the customer also. So, a*pit1'tn1 faice ,ior"g, ,hrrtirg ?n!y for the o[fence under Section 4 of piT act and f,f_titynert4.1 Lourt accepting the same, it is euident from tht ,::-"- cnflrge sheet that the petition?r/!3 i: prima facie liable fir charge under Section 3704 thoush not under Sectil,n i iiiir, *i,n which he zuas charge sheeied. 7. Now, tlre cruciaL question is whether the High Court in its inherent power under Section 4g2 Cr.p.C. whiLe quashing the proceedings. against the petitiotnerffi for the olJe,nce under Section 4. of pIT Acican direct'the Co.*'tiia C*n tu tutc (ognrzanc? oJ oJJen cc under section 3704 IpC a4ainsl hinr. In mv considered aiew, to secure tn, ,ri, o,i iurtirq tlu High Court cin exercise its i;;;;:;;';";;r"'ii'rrio, ,urn direction when the material ,,o:rO-.Oy tru p["rr*ti", f"'. ,norg, slvet discloses the commission of offeie ""irrirrnr"ita rcc. In the result, uhj!., lyrling tt, p*rrriing, i, PRC No. 103 of 2014 on the fite iy n Aiaitiorlt'funior ciztit lu d ge-cu m - XI X Me t roool ito n Magisira te, irirrprtiy' rr"iiiyrpr r, "l i fr ; ; ; g')i*,' iil' ii,:, i,3 4o r, C y b e r ab a d u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 Iearned Conmitta.l Magistrate is direied cogruzance under Section 370A IpC against the petitioner/A3.,, -';""'""

8. ,) "j

10. A perusal of S. Nazten Kuma/ s case clearly discloses that in view of the gang rape of Nirbhaya in Derhi, the Government considered it fit to amend several provisions of I.p.C. Basing on the directions of the Law Commission and the penal provisions, Section 370AI.p.C was introduced. The leamed Single ]udge has 10 specifically given a finding that having regard to the avowed object with which the report was submitted and amendments were made and new provisions were introduced in several acts' it cannot be presumed for a moment that Legislators considered the customer as an innocent victim in the flesh trade'

11. Furthermore, as the petitioner in Crl P No 3002 of 2021 was only a customer and as per the remand report' the offences alleged against him were under Sections 3' 4 and 5 of the Act' 1956,butnot under Sections 370A(2) and 188 l'P'C'' the learned Single judge of this Court has relied upon the principle laid down in the said iudgment, and quashed' the proceedings against the petitioner therein for the offences under Sections 3' 4 and 5 of the Actttide order dated 16 04'2021

72. It is apt to refer to Section 370A of the Act' 1956' which reads as follows: "370A: Exploitation of a trafficked person: (1) Whoe'ter, knowingly or hrto-:lq r:nson to belieae that a minot has'bLen tuaffcked' engages such ffiinor for sexual exploitation in any.t'fiannetl shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment 11 (2) for a term tohich shall t be tess than fae years, but *h;;;' ;;;;",::t an d shat t, t,,'i,' i i,iil,ii';:.n *',o,n yio,,, vvhoet)er, knowinltV bi t u-,j:.,: *,,.'; ";;i,"7 ;:,rT;:,r wn,f ::!rg* such person for sexual ,rOt"iiiii,i, any manner, shatt bi punished ,ir,O"iiiii",rr, t.mprrsonment for a term ul than three y,,;,,;,;;';;:;rch shatt not be tess y e a r s, a n d i h a r i ; i,;' b; ; ; ;:b: ;,7:i ; : j: n d t o fo e 13. A perusal ofsub_clause (2) ofSection 370.4. ofthe Act,L956, discloses that whoever, knowingry by or having reason to berieve that a person 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 sha, arso be liabre to fine. However, the issue as to whether the customer has the knowleclge that the person is trafficked or engaged for sexual exploitation has to be analyzed, in order to punish him for the said offence. -L4. Moreover, in the present cases, the 161 Cr.p.C. Statements of the victims clearly disclose that they have voluntarily participated in sexual intercourse with the customers. Furthermore, at the stage of filing of the FIRS, the police Agency 10 could not prove that the customers have knowledge and/or the reason to believe that the wornen were trafficked for the purPose of Prostitutron'

15. Furthermore' the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act' 2013 introduced Section 370A' which criminalized those who engaged traf{icked Persons or minors for sexual exploitation' The term "sexual exploitation' is not defined in the IPC' Section 2(Q of Act' 1956 defines "Prostitution" as sexual exploitation But' there is no definition of the said term in international law either' ln 2003' the UN Secretary General issued Special Measures for Protection of Women and Girls from Sexual Exploitation and Sexuai Abuse and defined sexual exploitation as " any actual or attempted abuse of a position of ar.inerability, dffirential power' or trust' t'or sexual purposes, including, but not limited to, Profting monetarily' socially or politicalltl from the sexual exploitntion of another '" That the persons/ those who engage minors or adults for sexual exploitation' alone are punished, but not those, who engage others for labour exploitation 13

76. Since Section TTOA I.p.C. relates to engaging a trafficked person for sexual exploitation, whether it attracts to the customer or not is the question in the present cases.

77. The Act, 1956 does not prohibit the sale of sexual services per se but it does criminalise the exploitation of sexual workers by third parties or any aspect of sex work that is rikely to cause public nuisance. The Act, 1956 does not explicitly mention the customer's liability.

18. It is pertinent to mention here that in many cases, the customers are usualry apprehended at the site of the flat, apartment lodge or house, which have been mentioned as brothel houses. The customers are chargesheetecl for a range of offences under Section s 3 to 7 of the Act, 1,956 and. sometimes under Section 370 IpC,. The customers may file an application either for grant of anticipatory bail or for grant of bail along with a petition to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 7+

19. The persons, who were in and around the brothel houses' were also taken into custody by the police and were treated as customers waiting for the Prostitution' Mere presence does not justify the offence for prostitution' which according to Section 2(Q of the Act, 1956 invoives "sexual exploitation"' which in turn' requires some sexual intercourse'

20. In the present cases' none of the charge sheets' which are under challenge, disclosed that the customer was caught hoid when he was comrnitting the offence' Admittedly' even the 161 Cr.P.C. statements do not disclose that there was proof of any exchange of money' There is no specilic provision under the Act' 1956, that is directed towards the customers' 2L. ln Arittn Rao and others zs' State of A'P 2' the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dismissing the Petitions filed to quash the proceedings under Sections 3 to 5 of the Act' 1956 held that thecustomercanbebookedunderSectionT(1)oftheAct,1956,as per the definition of "prostitution" under Section 2(fl of the Act' 1956, and decided that merely having sexual intercourse by 2 MANU AP 0543 /2013 i5 Paying money does not attract ,,prostitution,, mentioned under Section 7 of the Act, 1956, since the prostitution involved ,,sexual exploitation" or abuse of persons for commercial purposes. Further, in Z. Lourdian Naidu o. State of Andhra pradesh3, the erstwhile High Court of Andfua pradesll while allowing the petitions filed for quashing of the proceedings for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, L956, held that Section 4 of the Act would attract only if a person knowingly lives on the earnings of the prostitution of any other person. The activity carried out in a given premises will amount to prostitution within the meaning of Section 2 oI the Act,7956 only if sexual abuse by exploitation of the person is done for commercial purpose. Neither the brothel keeper, sex worker nor the customer can be held tiable under this Section.

22. Naoeen Kumar,s case (supra) is notable for its ready conflation of trafficking with sex work. The exceptions to the judicial trend of exonerating customers under the Act, 1956 are limited. As per the said judgment, customers cannot be tried for 3 2Ot3 (2) ALD Crl.393 r6 theoffencesundertheAct,lg56.Itisonlywherethecustomer performs his role of procuring for another' the Courts adopted di{ferent interpretation of customer's liability under Section 370 (A) I.P.C.

23. lt Mohd. Riyaz ts' State of Telangana (CrLP'No'5803 of 2018, dated 27.06.2018), this Court took into consideration the varying opinions of the High Courts on customer liability under theAct,1956andSections370and370(A)I.P.Candheldthat customer lvas not liable to be prosecuted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, 1956 or Section 370 I'P 'C'' but' he could be held liable under Section 370 (A) I P'C'

24. It is th-e con-ten-tion- of the learned counsel appearing {or the petitioners that the ingredients of Section 370 (A) I'P'C' are not at allattractedtothecustomers/evenifSection16lCr.P.C statements disciose that the victims have voluntarily stepped into prostitution due to poverty and other family backgrounds'

25. While interpreting so, in Mohd'Riyaz's case' the learned Single |udge of this Court has opined that it is clear that the 17 petitioner therein allegedly came to brothel house and found in a room along with the sex worker, and therefore, he is liable to be proceeded with the trial for the offence under Section 370A(2) I.P.C. In the said case, the learned Judge conflated participation in sexual intercourse with prostitution although the definition of prostitution under the Act, 1956, requires sexual exploitation or abuse. He then conflated sexual intercourse with sexual exploitation and presumed that the sex worker was trafficked although there is no allusion to this in the facts recounted in the decision

26. But, in the present cases, none of the witnesses/sex workers stated that they have been exploited sexually or of sexual abuse. In the absence of any material that the women are trafficked for the purpose of engaging for sexual exploitation, the offence under Section ZZO (A)e) I.p.C. will not attract against the customers. Further, the wording ,,trade to flesh,, is not found in the said Section. As per Section j7O (A)(2) I.p.C., it is for the prosecution to always prove that the customer is also having reason inter alia to believe that the victim is trafficked, engages 18 Persons for sexual exPloitation Then onlY the said Section rs attracted.

27. As already stated supra' the complainant is always the Police Agency, who raids on the brothel houses' and that at that particular point of time, the customers whether knowingly by or having reason to believe that a person has been trafficked' engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner have come to the brothel house or not' cannot be stated by the Police Agency at that particular point o[ time' in order to attract the said offence.

28. Furthermore, the Persons' who are caught in the Premrses or in the surroundings of the brothel house" were also implicated for the offence under Section 370 (A) I'P'C The reports or the proceedings issued by the police themselves disclose that the persons were not found along with the sex workers in the room and they were either waiting in or around the surroundings of the brothel house. Therefore, those Persons cannot be termed as customers. 19

29. In any of the cases, neither the petitioners/customers nor the victims were subjected to medical evidence to prove that they had sexual intercourse and that the customers have sexually exploited the victims. None of the proceedings discloses about the said fact. Neither the contents of the proceedings of the police nor the 161 Cr.p.C. statements of the victims disclose that the customers knew or had a reason to believe that the women or minor were trafficked and that they were engage<i for sexual exploitation.

30. Moreover, the petitioners were found only in the premises, but they were not found indulging in the acf in order to attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section ZZ0(A)(2) I.P.C.

31. Insofar as Section 370 I.p.C. is concerned, it envisages trafficking of person. As per the said Sectior.r, whoever for the purPose of exploitation (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c)harbours, (d) transfers or (e) receives a person or persons by using tfueats or using force, or any other form of coercion or by abduction or by practicing fraud, or deception or by abuse of power or by 20 inducement including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the Person, who is recruited' transported' harboured' transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking'

32. The present cases are completely relating to the customers who have been involvect in prostitution' Since Section 370 I'P'C' d.oes not attract to the petitioners/customers herein' the question of trafficking of women in the present cases does not arise'

33. As already stated suPra' insofar as the offence punishable under Section 370A I'P C' is concerned' none of the statements of the victims disclose that they have been trafficked for the purpose of prostitution and were forced to do prostitution by the organizer. Further, the 151 Cr'P'C' statements of the victims clearly disclose that they are doing prostitution volitionally for the reasons best known to them' Therefore' Section 370.4 I'P'C' does not attract the facts of the cases on hand as far as the petitioners/customers are concerned' as the question of trafficking does not arise in the absence of the term "tra{ficking" ' 21

34. Insofar as the offences punishable uncler Section s 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, L956 are concerned, in view of the law declared by different High Courts including this Cour! the customers are not liable to be prosecuted for the said offences. .I.herefore, petitioners cannot be held Iiable to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 3, 4,5 and 6 of the Act, 1956.

35. As far as the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, L956, is concerned, the allegation of having sexual intercourse by paying money does not attract prostifution. Therefore, the customers cannot be held liable under Section 7 of the Act,1956.

36. Nextly, none of the statements of the victims disclose that the victims have been trafficked for the purpose of prostitution and they were forced to do prostitution by the organizer.

37. For the foregoing discussion and having considered the authoritative principles of Iaw and in the absence of any statement of the victims to the effect that the petitioners have approached them as customers, who were allegedly exploited, and since there is no sufficient material against the 22 petitioners/ customers to Prove that at the time of offence' the customers knowingly and had a reason to believe that the victims aretraffickedwomenandengagedinsexualexploitation.this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings against the petitioners in the respective F'I'Rs/C'Cs/P'R'Cs/S Cs are liable to be quashed.

38. Criminal Petition Nos'5073' 6183 and 7164 of 2023 are allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners therein in therespective Crimes mentioned therein;

39. Criminal Petition No 6952 of 2023 is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner therein in the Calendar Case rrerltioned theiein;

40. Criminal Petition Nos' 5560' 6106' 6'110' 6299' 6932' 6876' 6626, 7058 and' 71'40 of 2023 are allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners therein in the respective Preliminary Register Cases mentioned therein; and

41.. Criminal Petition Nos' 5573' 5983' 5954' 6198' 6020' 6266' 62S2and,6T:lTot202Sarealsoallowedquashingtheproceedings 23 against the petitioners therein in the respective sessions Cases mentioned therein. Pending miscellaneous applications, { any, shall stand closed. Date:76.08.2023 G.ANUP AMA CHAKRAVARTHY, I