2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 48
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Poduri Ranjith – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP/608/2025
The court quashed proceedings against the accused due to lack of evidence proving knowledge of trafficking, establishing that mere customer status does not constitute an offence under the relevant laws.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 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 prostitution - Court found no evidence of trafficking or knowledge of the accused regarding the victim's status, leading to quashing of proceedings. (Paras 12, 13)
(B) Abuse of Process of Law - Continuation of proceedings without sufficient evidence constitutes abuse of process, warranting quashing of charges against the accused. (Paras 12)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court reviews evidence and allegations (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. proceedings quashed (Para 13) |
O R D E R
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha , 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner-accused No.4 to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.59 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners 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 V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 and perused the record.
03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the Police, Hayathnagar Police Station received credible information about running of brothel house and raided the premises at H.No.5-190/6, First Floor, UTF Colony, Laxma Reddy Palem, Hayathnagar and found that accused No.1 was organizing brothel house and petitioner-accused No.4 is e the customer of the said brothel house.
04. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the woman who was found with the 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)(2) 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 the petitioners.
05. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the 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