THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4592 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused No.3, to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.764 of 2024 on the file of Sanathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 144 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS) (previously, Sections 370 and 370(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’)) and Sections 3 to 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.10.2024, at about 19:00 hours, on receiving credible information about running of brothel house at 1st floor, Room No.101, H.No.7-12- 1027, SRT 772, Kasivilla, Sanathnagar, the Police raided the said premises and noticed that with an intention to earn money in ease manner, accused No.1 procured the victim women for participating in illicit sexual intercourse with the customers by offering attractive amounts. It is stated that on 05.10.2024 accused Nos.2 and 3 went to the said premises to fulfill their sexual desires and found with the victim women in the closed bedroom at the said premises. As such, accused Nos.1 to 3 along with the victim women have been taken into custody and seized cash and mobile phones. Based on the complaint, a case was registered vide Crime No.764 of 2024 before the Sanathnagar Police, Cyberabad.

3. Heard Sri K.Hemanth Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner/accused No.3 is a customer, the offences under Sections 143, 144 of the BNS and Sections 3 to 5 of the Act are not applicable. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of Sri Shafi v. State of Telangana¹, Pendli Uday Kiran v. State of Telangana² Yogesh K.B. v. State of Karnataka³ and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3.

Crl.P.NO.15877 of 2024 Crl.P.No.16397 of 2024 Crl.P.No.4189 of 2023

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the presence of the petitioner was clearly found by the Police at the scene of offence and was taken into custody. He further submitted that according to the prosecution, this petitioner is also alleged for the offences punishable under Section 144 of the BNS (previously, Section 370(A) of the IPC) as the petitioner is found with the victim women in closed room at the said premises and placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Thanna Bharagav Kumar Vs State of Telangana, 4crl.P.No.5999 of 2022. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. In view of the rival submissions of both the parties, this Court has perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Sri Shafi (Supra 1), wherein at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 it is held as under:

“11. As seen from the entire case record, including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., discloses that petitioner-accused No.2 is a customer and she clearly stated that due to poverty and other family backgrounds she joined brothel house and given her willingness to do sex with the customers and she collected money from the petitioner herein. Furthermore, there is no allegation in the FIR that the petitioner herein had knowledge and/or the reason to believe that the woman was trafficked for the purpose of prostitution. Therefore, the

ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 370(A)

(2) of IPC is not made out against the petitioner.

12. In view of the above discussion and having