ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short (cid:145)Cr.P.C.(cid:146)), is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.113 of 2022, pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The petitioner herein is accused No.3 in the said crime. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 370, 370 (A) (2) of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, for short ((cid:145)PITA(cid:146)). 2. Heard Sri Peddapally Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. In the complaint dated 07.11.2021, the allegation against the petitioner herein is that he is a customer and was found in a compromising position on the spot i.e., H.No.12-

11-1299/1/A, Boudha Nagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

4. Referring to charge sheet, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Investigating Officer himself has mentioned that the petitioner is a customer and was found in a compromising position on the spot. On searching they found an unused condom, one cell phone and Honda Glamour motocycle and seized the same from the petitioner herein. According to him, the contents of the same lacks ingredients of 370 (A) (2) of IPC. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the decision in Naveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana1. The punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioner herein is below seven years. With the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.113 of 2022 against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there is specific allegation against the petitioner herein that he was found in the spot where the raid took place and therefore, he is considered as a customer. He would further submit that though the contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of Section - 370 of the IPC and Sections - 3, 4 and 5 of the PITA, the same would constitute an offence under Section - 370A (2)

1. 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 156 (AP)

of the IPC. He would further submit that investigation is pending and the Investigating Officer has to investigate the crime by examining relevant witnesses and recording their statements. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in S. Naveen Kumar1.

6. In view of the above rival submissions, it is apt to refer to the provisions of Sections - 370 and 370A of the IPC and Sections - 3, 4 and 5 of the PITA, which are as under:

(cid:147)370-A. Exploitation of a trafficked persons._

(1) xxxxx (2) Whoever, knowingly by or having reason to believe that a person has been trafficked, engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.(cid:148)

PITA (cid:147)3. Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel.

(1) Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.

(2) Any person who-

a. being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any premises, uses, or knowingly allows any other person to use, such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, or b. being the owner, lessor or landlord of any premises or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowl