THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6217 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking quashment of proceedings against the petitioners in Sessions Case No. 541 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the Sessions Case, charged for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 370(A) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956 (for short, ‘PITA’).

3. I have heard Mr. S. Akhilesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

4. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 16.03.2023 the Police on credible information of organizing brothel house surprised the Plot No.67, H.No.04-085/67B, Sriven Enclave, Gajularamaram at 14:15 hours and found the petitioners along with a woman/victim. Upon due proceedings the complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.211 of 2023 has been registered. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid and consequently, the Sessions Case was numbered vide S.C. No. 541 of 2023, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Medchal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per the complaint and even in the charge sheet the petitioners are projected as only customers. The record of prosecution is not disclosing that the petitioners have knowledge of trafficking or their involvement in any manner in organizing the prostitution. A Coordinate Bench of this Court had considered the similar allegations in Criminal Petition Nos.1647 of 2025 and 1639 of 2025 and concluded that the allegations would not make out a case against the customer under any of the arraigned Sections. Thus, prayed for intervention and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the fact of the petitioners being customers is not in dispute. He further fairly submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered similar issue and favourably concluded that the charges cannot be sustained against the customers.

7. I have carefully perused the materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsel.

8. The prosecution allegation against the petitioners ex facie is that the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are found along with the victim in a room at a place arranged by the organizer/accused No.1 and as customers availing service by paying certain amount. Even as per the victim, she has volunteered subject to payment through the other accused/management.

9. This factual position needs examination within the meaning of Section 370 of I.P.C., which is defining trafficking of a person. For better appreciation, Section 370 of I.P.C. is extracted hereunder:

370. Trafficking of 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 determinati