Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Padala Venkata Sai Rama Reddy vs The State Andhra Pradesh on 29 November, 2021

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

                                       1
                                                                           CMR, J.
                                                              Crl.P.No.6733 of 2021




*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                  + Criminal Petition No.6733 of 2021

% Dated 29-11-2021

# Padala Venkata Sai Rama Reddy
                                                               ..... Petitioner
Vs.

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High
Court of A.P, Amaravati & Anr.
                                                      .....Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioner      :M/s. A.S.K.S. Bhargav &
                                   Avanija Inuganti
                                   learned counsel.



^ Counsel for 1st respondent State: Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor

      Counsel for 2nd respondent:          ---

<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:
        1 2013(2) ALD (Cri) 393 = 2014(1) ALT (Cri) 322 (A.P.)
        2 2014 (2) ALD (Cri) 264 = 2015 (1) ALT (Cri) 85 (A.P)
        3 Order, dated 20.01.2021, in Crl.P.No.312 of 2020, of the

          Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru.
                                   2
                                                                   CMR, J.
                                                      Crl.P.No.6733 of 2021




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                Criminal Petition No.6733 of 2021



Padala Venkata Sai Rama Reddy
                                                       ..... Petitioner
Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court
of A.P, Amaravati & Anr.
                                                      .....Respondents


COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 29-11-2021



      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY


   1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers                --
      may be allowed to see the Judgments?

   2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked        -Yes-
      to Law Reporters/Journals

   3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see        -Yes-
      the fair copy of the Judgment?




                    JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
                                 3
                                                                   CMR, J.
                                                      Crl.P.No.6733 of 2021




THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                Criminal Petition No.6733 of 2021

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed

seeking quash of charge-sheet in P.R.C.No.8 of 2021 on the file

of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent State.

3. The petitioner is accused No.4 in P.R.C.No.8 of 2021 on

the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam. The said charge-sheet was filed against him

along with other accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 370-A(2) of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, on the ground that when

the police raided the brothel house that the petitioner was

present in the brothel house and he is the customer, who visited

the said premises to have sexual pleasure with a prostitute on

payment of cash to her. That is the only prime allegation

against the petitioner herein, who is accused No.4.

4. The petitioner sought quash of the said charge-sheet that

was filed against him primarily on the ground that no

prosecution for the offences under Section 370-A(2) of IPC or

under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956 is maintainable against a person who only visits the

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.6733 of 2021

brothel house as a customer. Therefore, he would submit that

as it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner visited the

said brothel house only as a customer that the present criminal

prosecution launched against him is not maintainable under law

and it amounts to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, he

sought for quash of the charge-sheet.

5. This Court finds considerable merit in the said contention

of the petitioner. In fact the legal position whether a customer

who visits the brothel house is liable for prosecution or not is no

more an undecided question of law. The said issue has come up

before this Court several times and this Court after analyzing

the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act held that a

person who visits the brothel house as a customer is not liable

for prosecution.

6. In the case of Z.Lourdiah Naidu v. State of A.P.1, this

Court held at paras.6 and 7 of the judgment, as follows:

"6. Section 4 of the Act would be attracted only if a person knowingly lives on the earnings of the prostitution of any other person. The activity carried out in a given premises will amount to prostitution within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act only if sexual abuse by exploitation of the person is done for commercial purpose.

7. Section 4 of the Act does not punish or make the person liable for the acts done by the person who is running the brothel house. This Section does not make the person, who carries on prostitution for her own gain, liable for punishment, so also the person who is running the said premises. This Section is meant to punish those persons who are living on the earnings of the prostitute. The said provision cannot be invoked for prosecuting the persons who visit the said premises. Therefore, the

2013(2) ALD (Cri) 393 = 2014(1) ALT (Cri) 322 (A.P.)

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.6733 of 2021

ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are not made out. In that view of the matter, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.337 of 2008 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yerramanzil, Hyderabad is nothing but abuse of process of Court."

7. Similarly, in the case of Goenka Sajan Kumar v. the

State of A.P2, it is held at paras 4 and 5 of the judgment as

follows:

"4. Section 3 of the Act imposes punishment for maintaining a brothel house or allowing premises to be used as a brothel house. Section 4 imposes penalty for living on the earnings of prostitution. Section 5 deals with the procurement, inducement or inducing a person for the sake of prostitution. Section 6 of the Act speaks about detaining a person in the premises where prostitution is carried out.

5. None of these sections speak about punishment to the customer of a brothel house. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall under the provisions of Sections 3 to 7 of the Act, as the petitioner was not running a brothel house nor did he allow his premises to be used as a brothel house. The petitioner is not alleged to be living on the earnings of prostitution. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was procuring, inducing or in dicing any person for the sake of prostitution nor is it the case of the prosecution that any person was earning on the premises where prostitution is carried out."

8. The aforesaid two judgments squarely apply to the present

facts of the case. In the present case also, the petitioner is only

a mere customer, who visited the brothel house. Therefore, he is

not liable for prosecution for the offences punishable under

Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

9. Even the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri

Roopendra Singh v. State of Karnataka3, also held that the

2014 (2) ALD (Cri) 264 = 2015 (1) ALT (Cri) 85 (A.P)

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.6733 of 2021

mere presence of persons at the spot during the raid, indicating

that they were the customers who had gone to the said spot does