JUDGMENT

G Sri Devi, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in S.C.No.183 of 2019 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

2. A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner/accused No.2 and others for the offences punishable under Section 370 (A) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, with an allegation that on 28.06.2019 at about 23.00 hours, on credible information that one person is organizing brothel house near Suzuki show room, Charla Road, Bhadrachalam, the Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to the said place, along with staff and witnesses and on search, found two ladies and two male persons in House bearing No.15-1-198, Near Suzuki Show Room, Charla Road, Bhadrachalam. On enquiry, Bhukya Himavathi (A.3) confessed that she has taken rented house and organizing the brothel house and she used to supply the sex workers to A.1 and A.2 and collected the amount from them . On their confession, it came to know that accused No.3 was running the brothel house in the said premises and she brought sex worker (LW.5) and sent petitioner (A.2), who is a customer, by taking money. After following the procedure prescribed, the police registered a case in Crime No.188 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 370(A) I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused, which was taken cognizance and numbered ad S.C.No.183 of 2019.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 submits that even accepting the allegations in the charge sheet to be true, the petitioner/accused No.2 is only a customer and not an organizer of brothel house. He further submits that Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act would not be attracted to the customers, who were present at the venue, where the alleged brothel house has been running. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 are liable to be quashed.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that petitioner/accused No.2 is liable for charge under Section 370A I.P.C and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. An identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in S.Naveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana, (2015) 2 ALD(Cri) 156 (AP) wherein this Court, while quashing the proceedings against the customer under Section 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, directed the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 370-A IPC against the customer.

7. Here, the petitioner/accused No.2 was not the person, who trafficked any person, for any of the purposes referred to above, but he was only a customer. Therefore, he is not liable for prosecution for the offences punishable under 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, however, he is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 370-A (2) of I.P.C.

8. In view of the judgment referred to above and having regard to the fact that the petitioner/accused No.2 is only a customer, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are liable to be quashed while permitting the Magistrate concerned to proceed further against the petitioner/A.2 for the offence punishable under Section 370 A (2) of I.P.C.

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in S.C.No.183 of 2019 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act only are hereby quashed while permitting the Magistrate concerned to proceed further against the petitioner/A2 for the offe