THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5052 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.1067 of 2024 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 144 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.11.2024, SI V. Rambabu of Banjara Hills Police Station received credible information regarding illegal activities being conducted under the guise of massage services at Mountain Beauty Spa, H.No.8-2-611/10, Road No.10, Banjara Hills. Following instructions from superior officers, he conducted a raid at 16:10 hrs along with staff and two mediators, Mr. Irfan Mohd and Mr. Shivalal Jadri. During the raid, one sub-organizer, Parveen Begum, and a male customer, Datta Tanaji, were found along with five female victims. Two organizers, Prashanth Puttalwar and Ravi Kumar, were found to be absconding. Police seized 12 unused condoms, 2 swiping machines, 9 mobile phones, and 1 DVR from the premises. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered the case in Crime No.1067 of 2024, before the Banjara Hills Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 144 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/accused No.2 filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against him.

3. Heard Sri Ramesh Babu Pedapalli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence as alleged and that the FIR lacks sufficient material to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and fails to establish a criminal case against the accused. He further submitted that the allegations appear vague, improbable, and inherently absurd, such that no reasonable person could conclude that there are valid grounds to proceed against the petitioner and that the proceedings seem to be motivated by mala fide intention and instituted with an ulterior motive, possibly to harass the petitioner. He contended that the FIR refers to the establishment as a massage parlour but later describes it as a brothel house without any factual basis, purely to invoke penal provisions. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He further submitted that the investigation is not yet completed and at this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the investigation is still in progress. As noted from the remand report, accused No.3 became acquainted with accused No.2 approximately three months prior while undertaking household work at his spa. During this period, accused No.3 disclosed her financial difficulties to accused No.2, who assured her of financial assistance and informed her that he was operating a brothel. He proposed that she manage the premises and oversee the welfare of the sex workers in exchange for a substantial amount, which she accepted. Subsequently, accused No.2 introduced her to accused No.1, identified as the main organizer responsible for procuring sex workers from neighboring districts and states. Accused Nos.1 a