Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
.......... – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short hereinafter), by the accused, in Crime No. 975/2019 of Ernakulam North Police Station, now pending as S.C. No. 736/2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court-II, Ernakulam, to quash the entire proceedings.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents.
3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(ii) and 370(1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short hereinafter) by the accused.
4. While seeking quashment of this proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that going by the prosecution allegations, none of the offences alleged would attract prima facie. It is also submitted that as per Annexure 5 order in Crl. M.P. No. 96/2020, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner, which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, as per Annexure-6 order in Crl. R.P. No. 35/2021. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the defacto complainant reached Chennai for
The court established that prima facie evidence of trafficking and sexual harassment justified the continuation of criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 354A and 370.
The absence of evidence proving that victims were trafficked or exploited negates the applicability of Section 370(A)(2) IPC against customers.
Customers cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act without evidence of trafficking, but may be liable under Section 370(A)(2) IPC if they had reason to believe victims were tra....
A customer may still be liable for prosecution under trafficking laws if found in situational exploitation, regardless of previous rulings on knowledge or consent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence of exploitation for a conviction under Section 370(5)/34 of the IPC.
Sex workers are victims, not perpetrators, absent evidence of soliciting or pimping under ITP Act.
Insufficient prima facie evidence can lead to quashing of charges under trafficking statutes.
The absence of sexual intent in the victim's statements negated the applicability of the alleged offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
The court established that allegations of sexual assault must be substantiated by credible evidence and timely reporting, and that proceedings can be quashed if they are found to be initiated with ul....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
