ORDER :

Seeking to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner in PRC No.191 of 2022 on the file of the Court of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the present criminal petition is filed.

2. Heard the submission of Sri Achyuth Bharadwaj representing the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who argued on behalf of respondent No.1.

3. The Detective Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad laid charge sheet against the petitioner and two others. The petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.3. The contents of the charge sheet are that the other two accused i.e., accused Nos. 1 and 2 committed offences punishable under Section 370, 370(A)(2) of Indian Penal Code and petitioner/accused No.3 has committed offence punishable under Section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

4. The case facts in capsule are that on 11.05.2022, the Sub Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills police station, Hyderabad received credible information that some persons are running brothel house and on that he conducted raid of the premises wherein the said activities were reported to be going-on and found the accused Nos.1 and 2 maintaining brothel house by procuring sex workers and that the petitioner/accused No.3 visited the said place to have sexual intercourse with one of those sex workers.

5. Making his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the contents of the charge sheet does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 as far as the petitioner/accused No.3 is concerned and the acts if, any, committed by the petitioner does not fall with the realm of those provisions and, therefore, no criminal liability can be fastened against the said person and hence the proceedings that are pending against him have to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel in this regard relied upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in a case between Padala Venkata Sai Rama Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2022 (1) ALD (Crl.) 92 (AP) wherein the Court at para 5 of the order observed as follows :-

“This Court finds considerable merit in the said contention of the petitioner. In fact, the legal position whether a customer who visits the brothel house is liable for prosecution or not is no more an undecided question of law. The said issue has come up before this Court several times and this Court after analyzing the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act held that a person who visits the brothel house as a customer is not liable for prosecution.”

7. On the other hand, making a submission that even if the acts does not fall squarely within the purview of Section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the prosecution is maintainable under Section 370-A Indian Penal Code, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the decision of this Court which is rendered in a case between S.Naveen Kumar vs State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No.3158 of 2015 dated 28.04.2015, wherein the Court held as follows:

“It shall be noted that in the wake of gang rape of Nirbhaya in Delhi which arose an unprecedent public furore, Government considered it fit to drastically amend several provisions of IPC and in that direction appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of late Justice J.S.Verma, the former Chief Justice of India. The Committee after interacting cross sections of stake holders submitted its detailed report suggesting amendments and introduction of various provisions in penal laws like IPC, Cr.P.C., Evidence Act etc. Consequent upon the said report sub-clause (2) of Section 370 IPC was amended and Section 370A IPC was introduced. Having regard to the avowed object with which report was submitted and amendments and new provisions were introduced in several acts, it cannot be presumed for the moment that Legislators considered customer as an innocent victim in the flesh trade. The