Back
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Juvvadi Sridevi
Murali – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
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 peti
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.
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.
Engagement in prostitution is not punishable under the Act without clear evidence of procurement or inducement.
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
