A customer in a trafficking case cannot be charged under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act unless involvement in managing prostitution is established.

ORDER :

N. TUKARAMJI, J.

This criminal petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’) seeking quashment of proceedings in Sessions Case No.233 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Kushaiguda, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

2. The petitioner is accused No.3 charged for the offences under Section 3 70 (A)(2) of INDIAN PENAL CODE ,1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 , 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, ‘PITA’).

3. I have heard Ms.Saggala Srivani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State.

4. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 07.02.2023 the police on credible information of organizing brothel house surprised the Plot No.62, Sri Sai Krishna Nagar Colony, near KCR Nagar, Ramanthapur and found the petitioner along with a woman/victim. Upon the due proceedings the complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.162 of 2023 has been registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the complaint and even in the charge sheet the petitioner is projected as only customer. The record of prosecution is not disclosing that the petitioner has knowledge of trafficking or his involvement in any manner in organizing the prostitution. A coordinate bench of this Court had considered the similar allegations in Criminal Petition Nos.1647 of 2025 and 1639 of 2025 and concluded that the allegations would not make out a case against the customer under any of the arraigned sections. Thus prayed for intervention and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the fact of the petitioner being customer is not in dispute. He further fairly submitted that a coordinate bench of this Court has considered similar issue and favourably concluded that the charges cannot be sustained against the customer.

7. I have carefully perused the materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsel.

8. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner ex facie is that the petitioner/accused No.3 is found along with the victim in a room at a place arranged by the organizer/other accused and as customer availing service by paying certain amount. Even as per the victim, she has volunteered subject to payment through the other accused/management.

9. This factual position needs examination within the meaning of Section 370 of I.P.C., which is defining trafficking of a person. For better appreciation, Section 370 of I.P.C. is extracted hereunder:

370. Trafficking of person.—(1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by—

Firstly. — using threats, or

Secondly. — using force, or any other form of coercion, or

Thirdly. — by abduction, or

Fourthly. — by practising fraud, or deception, or

Fifthly. — by abuse of power, or

Sixthly. — by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.

Explanation 1.—The expression "exploitation" shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs.

Explanation 2.—The consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of the offence of trafficking.

(2) Whoever commits the off