Vakkalanka Srinivasa Rao v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2826 of 2015 ORDER:

The petitioner/Accused No.4 filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.2860 of 2013 on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District.

2) The petitioner/A.4 along with A.1 to A.3 are accused of committing offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"). On the night of 21.06.2012, the Police of KPHB P.S, Cyberabad raided the residential House bearing No.LIG 69, Phase-II, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally and found the said premises being used for prostitution. A.1 and A.2 are said to be the brothel house organizers, whereas A.3 and A.4 are the customers. The police registered crime and investigating the matter.

3) Heard both sides.

4 ) Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that none of the Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 or other sections of the Act describes a customer as offender and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner/A.4 is abuse of process of law and hence the proceedings against him may be quashed.

5) Learned Public Prosecutor contended A.4 is co-accused and liable for prosecution.

6 ) I find force in the submission of petitioner. Section 3 of the Act deals with punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Section 4 of the Act deals with punishment for living on the earnings of the prostitution. Section 5 of the Act deals with procuring, inducing or taking persons for the sake of prostitution. Whereas Section 6 of the Act deals with detaining a person in premises where prostitution is carried on. Obviously, the allegations against the petitioner/A.4 are not that of either running brothel house

or procuring women for the purpose of prostitution or that they are living by earning money on prostitution. He was booked along with other accused only as customer of the flesh trade. Therefore, Sections 3 to 6 are not applicable to him. It is interesting to note that none of the other penal provisions in the Act either describe him as offender. Therefore, there is any amount of force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that customer to the flesh trade cannot be treated as offender under the Act. This aspect is no more res integra and we are fortified by atleast two judgments of this High Court viz., Goenka Sajan Kumar vs. The State of A.P. and Z.Lourdiah Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. In these two cases, the petitioner was admittedly the customer to a brothel house. Consequently, the proceedings against them were quashed holding that the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked for prosecuting them.

7) Having regard to the facts and above precedential jurisprudence on the subject in issue, it is clear that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. 8 ) In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against petitioner/A.4 in C.C.No.2860 of 2013 on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 08.04.2015 Murthy