2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 19
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Pilligandla Shivaprasad – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP/134/2025
The court ruled that without evidence of knowledge of trafficking, the continuation of proceedings against the accused constitutes an abuse of process of law.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code - Section 370(A)(2) - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Sections 3, 4, and 5 - Criminal Petition to quash proceedings against accused for alleged trafficking and brothel-related offences - Court found no evidence of knowledge or involvement in trafficking, leading to quashing of proceedings. (Paras 12, 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Abuse of process of law - Continuation of proceedings against accused without sufficient evidence constitutes abuse of process. (Paras 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner-accused No.4 was alleged to be a customer at a brothel, with no evidence of involvement in trafficking or running a brothel. The victim stated she willingly engaged in prostitution due to poverty.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had no knowledge of the woman being trafficked and that the allegations did not constitute the offences charged.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had knowledge of the trafficking of the woman involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without evidence of knowledge or involvement in trafficking, the proceedings against the petitioner were an abuse of process.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
O R D E R
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner-accused No.4 to quash the proceedings against him in SC. No.249 of 2024 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. The offences alleged against petitioner are under Section 370(A)(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).
02. Heard Sri P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State and perused the record.
03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the Police, Madhapur Police Station received credible information about running of brothel house and raided the premises at H.No.1-98/6/A/62, 63, Angel SPA, Cyber Hills colony, Madhapur and found that accused No.1 is organizing brothel house, accused Nos.2 and 3 are brokers and petitioner-accused Nos.4 to 6 are customers of the said brothel house, wherein accused No.4 is the petitioner herein.
04. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the woman who was found with petitioner-accused No.4 is not a trafficked woman and petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offences. The ingredients of the offence under Section 370(A) of IPC and Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Act does not attract to the present case on hand. Thereby, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against petitioner-accused No.4.
05. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against petitioner and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting full-fledged trial by the concerned Court below and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.
06. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to extract the provision under Section 370 of IPC:
“370. 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 imprisonmen