IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SUJANA, J
Basanolla Vijayender – Appellant
Versus
The State of T.S. - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.10667 of 2024
Decided on : 10-09-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 370(A)(2) – Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 – Sections 3 to 5 – Criminal Petition filed to quash proceedings against accused for alleged offences of trafficking and prostitution – Court held that absence of evidence of exploitation or trafficking against accused as customers negates applicability of Section 370(A)(2) IPC – Proceedings under Sections 3 to 5 of the Act quashed, but those under Section 370(A)(2) IPC to continue. (Paras 1, 6, 17)
(B) Criminal Law – Trafficking – Definition and applicability of Section 370(A)(2) IPC discussed – Court emphasized that prosecution must prove knowledge of trafficking for the offence to apply. (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case :
Petitioners, accused Nos.3 and 4, sought to quash proceedings for alleged involvement in a brothel operation, asserting lack of evidence of trafficking or exploitation.
Findings of Court :
The court found no evidence of the victims being trafficked or exploited, leading to the quashing of charges under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
Issues : Whether the petitioners could be prosecuted under Section 370(A)(2) IPC given the absence of evidence of trafficking.
Ratio Decidendi : The court ruled that without evidence of trafficking or exploitation, the charges under the relevant sections could not stand.
Result : Criminal Petition partly allowed.
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4 in FIR, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.543 of 2023 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge-Cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 370(A)(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3 to 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.05.2022 at about 19:00 hours, on receiving credible information about running of brothel house at Fascinova Unisex Saloon and SPA, A.S.Rao Nagar, the Police raided the said premises and noticed that with an intention to earn money in ease manner, accused Nos.3 and 4 procured the victim women for participating in illicit sexual intercourse with the customers by offering attractive amounts. It is stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 went to the said premises for sexual intercourse. As such, accused Nos.1 to 5 along with the victim women have been taken into custody and seized cash and mobile phones. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime No.491 of 2022 on the file of Kushaiguda Police Station, Rachakonda and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed vide S.C.No.543 of 2023 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge-Cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri.
3. Heard Sri M.Veera Prasada Chary, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioner/accused No.5 is a customer, the offences under Section 370(A)(2) of IPC and Sections 3 to 5 of the Act are not applicable. In this regard, he placed reliance on Crl.P.No.5073 of 2023 and batch dated 16.08.2023 and prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the presence of the petitioners was clearly found by the Police at the scene of offence and was taken into custody. He further submitted that according to the prosecution, these petitioners are also alleged for the offence under Section 370(A)(2) of IPC as the petitioners are the customers and placed reliance on the order of this Court in Thanna Bharagav Kumar Vs State of Telangana, Crl.P.No.5999 of 2022. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. In view of the rival submissions of both the counsel, this Court has perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly relied on the common order of the Court in Criminal Petition No.5073 of 2023 and batch, wherein at paragraph No.26 it is held as under:
7. A plain reading of the above would abundantly make it clear that in the aforesaid common order, neither the witnesses nor the sex workers admitted that they have been exploited sexually or of sexual abuse. As such, in the absence of statements of victim women to the fact they have been trafficked for the purpose of prostitution to indulge the petitioners in the act,
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.
Customers cannot be prosecuted under trafficking laws without evidence of knowledge regarding the exploitation of individuals involved.
Sexual exploitation – In absence of any evidence likely to come on record, securing conviction against accused is impossible and case can be quashed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.