HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8580 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 Crime No.692 of

2025 of Saroornagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, registered for the offences under Section 144 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “the BNS”) and Sections 3 to 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, ‘PITA’).

3. I have heard Mr.G.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

4. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 01.07.2025 the police on credible information of organizing brothel house surprised the H.No.11-5-193, Flat No.101, Road No.8, Venkateshwara Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District and found accused No.1, petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 along with a woman/victim. Upon the due proceedings the complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.692 of 2025 has been registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per the complaint and even in the charge sheet the petitioners are 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 customer.

7. I have carefully perused the material 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 the 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—

First. — 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 determination of the offence of trafficking.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of trafficking shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(3) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one person, it shall be punishabl