THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8140 OF 2025 % Dated:08.09.2025 # Sneha Priya, W/o. T. Durgesh, Age 35 years, Occ: Homemaker, R/o.7-2-49/5/109, DNM Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. .. Petitioner/accused No.2 And The State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner : Mr. S.M. Saifullah ^ Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. S.Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor

? Cases referred THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8140 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings in Crime No.483 of 2025 on the file of Police Station Punjagutta registered for the offences under Sections 143, 144 (2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, ‘PITA Act’).

2. Heard Mr. S.M.Saifullah, counsel for petitioner/ accused No.2 and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, Assistant Public Prosecutor representing Palle Nageshwar Rao, Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. Perused the material on record.

3. On the basis of a complaint by Sub Inspector (SI) of Police, Punjagutta, addressed to the Inspector of Police, Punjagutta Police Station, Crime bearing No.483 of 2025, dated 24.06.2025, is registered under Sections 143 and

144(2) of BNS and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of PITA Act.

4. The gist of the complaint is that on receipt of credible information, SI of Police placed such information before the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), obtained authorization memo for conducting raid on Blue Bells SPA. Information received was that a brothel house was being run by procuring female traffic victims and making them participate in sexual intercourse with customers by collecting amounts. SI of Police with personnel raided the place, as delay might cause disappearance of accused and material evidence, no search warrants were obtained.

5. At the reception of the SPA, they met one Sapa Vanitha, she explained about the packages and services, when queried, she took one of the personnel into a room with a condom packet. Identity was disclosed and the purpose of visit. The victim revealed and stated that owner of SPA was one Thirumala Rao and the Manager was Priya. That the owner and manager were collecting amounts of Rs.1,500/- - Rs.2,000/- from customers and allowing them to have sexual intercourse with her, she was paid Rs.15,000/- monthly. Two (2) mobile phones and seven (7) unused condoms were seized. Seizure report (in the presence of panchas) was prepared and affixed at the spot. SI of Police requested the Inspector of Police to take action, the owner and manager were absconding.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.2 submitted that as per Section 13 of PITA Act the State Government shall specify a Special Officer for each area for dealing with offences under PITA Act and such Officer shall not be below the rank of Inspector of Police. It is submitted that in the present case, it was a SI of Police who carried out the acts, lacks jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Section 15 of the PITA Act and submitted that that where the Special Police Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence punishable under PITA Act has been or is being committed in any premises, he is empowered to carry out a search without a warrant. It is further submitted that Special Officer should be of the rank of Inspector.

8. It is submitted that in the present case, it is the SI of Police, who entered the premises, seized mobile phones and condoms under the cover of seizure report (in the presence of panchas). It is further submitted that the SI of Police is not the Special Officer designated by the State Government for dealing with