ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.39 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent.

3. The petitioner is Accused No.3 in Crime No.224 of 2015 on the file of Pendurthy Police Station. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against him along with other accused for the offences punishable under Section 370A(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act) alleging that when the Police raided the house of Accused No.1 on information that she was conducting a brothel house, the petitioner was present there stated before the mediators that he visited the said premises for the purpose of prostitution.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that prosecution for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of ITP Act is not maintainable against a person, who visits the brothel house only as a customer. He further submits that the legal position as to whether a customer who visits a brothel house is liable for prosecution or not is no more res integra and the matter is covered by recent decisions of this Court in Padala Venkata Sai Rama Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No.6733 of 2021 dated 29.11.2021, and Salapu Venkateswara Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No.2156 of 2022, dated 13.3.2022. While drawing attention of this Court to the said decisions, learned counsel would urge that charge sheet filed against the petitioner in the present case is liable to be quashed.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor inter alia fairly submits that in so far as the offences registered against the petitioner under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of the ITP Act is concerned, the legal position in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well settled. However, he contended that in the decision rendered in Mohammad Riyaz vs. State of Telangana, Criminal Petition No.5803 of 2018, dated 27.6.2018, the issue with regard to the offence under Section 370A(2) of IPC was dealt with elaborately. In the said case, the crime was registered against the petitioner therein for the offences punishable under Sections 370 & 370A(2) of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act. The learned Judge while referring to the decisions of various High Courts held that the proceedings against the petitioner therein, who visited the brothel house as a customer are liable to be quashed in so far as the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP act are concerned, however, opined that the prosecution of the petitioner in respect of the offence punishable under Section

370A(2) of IPC shall be continued.

6. The learned Judge in Padala Venkata Sai Rama Reddy while referring the earlier decisions of this Court in Z.Lourdiah Naidu v. State of A.P.1, Goenka Sajan Kumar v. the State of A.P.2 as also the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Sri Roopendra Singh v. State of Karnataka3 held that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner therein, who was present in a brothel house at the time of raid by the Police as a customer, cannot be fastened with any criminal liability in respect of any of the offences for which the charge sheet was filed and the same would amount to abuse of process of law. The relevant portions may be extracted for ready reference:

1

2013 (2) ALD (Cri) 393 = 2014(1) ALT (Cri) 322 (A.P.) 2 2014(2) ALD (Cri) 264 = 2015(1) ALT (Cri) 85 (A.P.) 3 Criminal Petition No.312 of 2020, dated 20.1.2021

(i) Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 in Z.Lourdiah Naidu:

“6. Section 4 of the Act would be attracted only if a person knowingly lives on the earnings of the prostitution of any other