Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Billakanti Venkatesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of criminal proceedings. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments of both parties. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. details of alleged offences. (Para 3 , 10) |
| 4. analysis of relevant statutory provisions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. conclusion on absence of requisite knowledge. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. final ruling and quashing of proceedings. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused to quash the proceedings against him in P.R.C.No.124 of 2024 on the file of the learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District at Kukatpally. The offences alleged against petitioner are under Sections 143, 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Sections 370, 370(A) of the Indian Penal Code) and Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. Heard M/s. Rahul Kandharkar Abhishek Kadam, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the Police, received credible information about running of brothel house and raided the premises at SMO Hair and Beauty SPA, Upton Oyster Building
Knowledge of trafficking is essential to constitute offences under trafficking laws; voluntary engagement by individuals negates allegations against a customer.
The court emphasized that mere presence at a brothel does not constitute trafficking or exploitation without substantial evidence, leading to the quashing of charges.
A customer may still be liable for prosecution under trafficking laws if found in situational exploitation, regardless of previous rulings on knowledge or consent.
A customer cannot be criminally liable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act unless actively involved in inducement or procurement.
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....
The absence of evidence proving that victims were trafficked or exploited negates the applicability of Section 370(A)(2) IPC against customers.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
