IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Juvvadi Sridevi, J.
Murali – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.16446 of 2024
Decided On : 20-01-2025
ORDER :
Juvvadi Sridevi, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, (for short ‘B.N.S.S’) by the petitioner-accused No.4 to quash the proceedings against him in FIR No.1109 of 2024 of P.S. KPHB Colony, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143 and 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. Heard Sri K.Shanti Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State and perused the record.
3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the Police, KPHB Police Station received credible information about running of brothel house and raided Blue Star Saloon and Spa, LIG-597, Road No.3, KPHB and found petitioner-accused No.4 at the said brothel house in the capacity of ‘customer’.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is innocent, he was falsely implicated in the subject crime. The victim woman who was found in the premises was not a trafficked woman and since the petitioner was found at the premises in the capacity of ‘customer’, the offences alleged against him are not at all attracted. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner can only be known after conducting full- fledged trial before the Sessions Court, and hence, prayed to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to extract the provision under Section 143 of BNS (previously 370 of IPC):
“143. Trafficking of a 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 offence of trafficking shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(3)Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one person, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4)Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(5)Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than fourteen years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(6)If a person is convicted of the offence of trafficking of minor on more than one occasion, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life,
The court emphasized that mere presence at a brothel does not constitute trafficking or exploitation without substantial evidence, leading to the quashing of charges.
Knowledge of trafficking is essential to constitute offences under trafficking laws; voluntary engagement by individuals negates allegations against a customer.
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.
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.