ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANARAO, J.

The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the BNSS challenging the order dated 14.05.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.75/2023 in S.C.No.84/2022 passed by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, the Trial Court in refusing to discharge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 from the case registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 370A(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the I.P.C., and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the I.T.P.Act

2. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.75 of 2023 before the learned Trial Court seeking his discharge from the case. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 14.05.2024 dismissed the discharge petition under Section 239 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the discharge petition the Petitioner/Accused No.2 approached this Court.

3. Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the grounds of Revision argued that the Petitioner would not come under the preview of the Section 370A (2) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as he would not fit into the definition of the customer. He relied on the decision of this Court in Vasanthavada Raghubabu v. State of A.P., Crl.P.No.8675 of 2022 dated 31.10.2025

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Chowdary v. State of A.P., Crl.P.No.6634 of 2022 dated 26.08.2022 In the facts and circumstances of that case, it was held that the Petitioner therein would not come under the definition of customer as per Section 370A(2) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as there was no sexual exploitation at all and the L.W.9/victim in that case had voluntarily selected prostitution due to her financial problem and she wanted to live on such earnings. Hence that matter was quashed.

5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the Revision Case and supported the order of the learned ‘Trial Court’, contending that the discharge petition was rightly dismissed and further argued that the presence of the Petitioner at the premises and the payment of money to the victim and the intermediary (pimp) are sufficient grounds to frame charges and proceed to trial. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor maintained that these facts, taken together, raise a prima facie case warranting further adjudication.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement of the victim, L.W.5, though indicative of voluntary prostitution, does not absolve the Petitioner from scrutiny under Section 370A(2) of ‘the I.P.C.’ The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor emphasized that the determination of whether the Petitioner had knowledge or reason to believe that the victim was trafficked is a matter of trial and cannot be conclusively decided at the stage of discharge. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the Petitioner’s conduct in engaging the victim through a pimp and making payment for sexual services raises sufficient suspicion to justify the framing of charges. With respect to the offences under ‘the I.T.P.Act’, the Petitioner’s actions may potentially fall within the scope of Section 5 of ‘the I.T.P.Act,’ which deals with procuring or inducing a person for prostitution. He asserted that the factual matrix, including the coordination with the intermediary and the financial transaction, merits a full- fledged trial to ascertain the culpability of the Petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, the Petitioner cannot be discharged, and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the order in Crl.M.P.No.75/2023 in S.C.No.84/2022 d