Mere presence at a brothel house during a raid does not establish criminal liability for the customers, and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956 does not apply to them.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed by the petitoner-A3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in S.C. No. 80 of 2017 on the file of I-Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 01.06.2016 at 5.00 P.M. the Inspector of Police, Uppal, conducted raid on Flat No. 201, Rajya Laxmi Apartments, Sharada Nagar, Ramanathapur, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District and found 3 male and 2 female persons indulging in prostitution and caught them red-handedly. On interrogation, A1 confessed that he had done BAMS & BPT and started the massage centre at the above flat, but as he failed to earn profits, started prostitution business to earn easy money with the help of the women and was conducting brothel house in the name of massage centre. Basing on the above confession, police brought A1 and the other two customers and registered a suo motu case in Crime No. 429 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956 (for short ‘the Act’) and Sections 370 and 371-A IPC. During the course of investigation, police arrested A1 and A2 and served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to A3.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was aged 60 years and that he was suffering with multiple deceases like Myasthenia, Hypertension, Hypothyroid since 2000 and had been continuously getting treatments since then. Doctors advised him to go for physiotherapy treatment. As per the advice of the doctors, he went to Kerala Ayurvedic massage centre at Ramanthapur for the purpose of getting treatment. Meanwhile, Uppal police came to the spot and enquired the petitioner regarding his presence. The petitioner produced the relevant medical reports. Satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner and after perusing the medical reports, the police asked him to go away. But all of a sudden, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. by the Uppal police. Though the petitioner gave a suitable reply, summons were issued to him by the court of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. He engaged a counsel and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court and made over to the I-Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District and numbered as SC No. 80 of 2017. The respondent filed a false and fictitious case against the petitioner only to harass him. The petitioner was innocent and would suffer great prejudice, if he was asked to face prosecution and relied upon the judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Padala Venkata Sai Rama Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, CDJ 2021 APHC 378 and of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in Mohammad Juned Mohammad Rauf @ Mohammad Juned Maruf Mohammad Rauf vs. State of Maharashtra, CDJ 2020 BHC 1156.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition on merits.

6. Perused the record. As per the charge sheet filed by the police, the petitioner was shown as a customer, who visited the said place for the sake of prostitution. The merits of his contention that he visited the said place for physiotherapy, is a matter to be appreciated during the course of trial. However, as per the judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and of the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, the legal position whether a customer, who visits a brothel house, is liable for prosecution or not is no more res integra. The above High Courts, referring to the judgments in Z. Lourdiah Naidu vs. State of A.P. 2013 (2) ALD (Cri) 393 and Goenka Sajan Kumar vs. State of A.P. 2015 (1) ALT (Cri) 85 (A.P.) and of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Roopendra Singh vs. State of Karnataka (Crl. Pet. No. 312 of 2020, dated 20.01.2021) and of the Bombay High Court referring to its earlier judgments in Eimm Abdulamir Ja