ORDER :

K. Suresh Reddy, J.

These matters came up before us on a reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, who, while considering multitude Criminal Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [present Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023], by different petitioners in different crime numbers, vide CRLP Nos.8765 of 2022, 1190 of 2023 & 1959 of 2023, framed the following issue deemed to be of significance so as to render an authoritative verdict and directed that the same be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for an assignment to an appropriate Division Bench, for an authoritative pronouncement and to attain the finality. Pursuant thereto, Criminal Petition Nos.3680 & 2502 of 2022, 583, 1267, 4501, 5957, 6681, 6814, 6883 & 8366 of 2023, 32, 1417, 2590 & 4041 of 2024 and 878 of 2025 were also placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice on the same Reference. In pursuance thereof, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to constitute this Bench to consider and adjudicate upon the question so referred in Para 17 of said Common Order, dated: 19-04-2023 in CRLP Nos.8765 of 2022, 1190 of 2023, 1806 of 2023 & 1959 of 2023 and the said Para 17 is extracted hereunder:-

“17. Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon‟ble the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench for deciding the reference „whether, in a case registered for the offences under Sections 3 to 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, a customer can be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 370 or 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.”

2. When all these Criminal Petitions were listed before the learned Single Judge, a pivotal but quintessential was underscored and espoused by the Prosecution, wherein it was vehemently argued by the Prosecution that prima facie case against the customer under Section 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“Penal Code, 1860”] would be made out at the time when the customer(s) is/are caught red-handed by the police officials at the time of raid.

3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for Petitioners therein had submitted that a customer would not come within the purview of the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 [“the Act, 1956”] as well as under Sections 370 and 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Catena of Judgments were placed before the learned Singe Judge, wherein after due consideration, learned Single Judge had concluded that there is an apparent conflict with the ratio rendered by the co-ordinate Single benches of this Court through (i) S. Naveen Kumar @ Naveen v. State of Telangana,  2015 SCC OnLineHyd 154 = {2015} 2 ALD [CRL] 156 ; (ii) Mohammad Riyaz v. State of Telangana, Order Dated: 27-06-2018 in CRLP No.5803 of 2018. on one side and (i) Padala Venkata Sai Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Order Dated: 29-11-2021 in CRLP No.6733 of 2021. (ii) Dinesh Kumar Chowdary v. State of A.P, Order Dated: 26-08-2022 in CRLP No.6634 of 2022.; (iii) Putti Kalyan Shouri v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Order Dated: 16-09-2022 in CRLP No.4771 of 2022., on other side.

5. Sri Koneti Raja Reddy, learned Counsel leading the batch would strenuously contend that insofar as Customer is concerned, neither Section 370 of the Penal Code, 1860 nor Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, would be applicable. Further, the learned Counsel had also contented that a customer cannot be brought under the ambit of either the Act, 1956 or under Penal Code, 1860 and they are innocent and they cannot be prosecuted for sexual exploitation or trafficking.

6. Per contra, Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vociferously contended that the Customer can be prosecuted under Section 370 as well as Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, as in most of the cases, the customers were apprehended on spot by the police officials at the time of raid, and whether the case is one of attempt, or to commit an