The vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 9655 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9951 of 2022


ORDER:

The petitioners are Accused Nos.3 and 5 in S.C. No.74

of 2019 on the file of the Mahila Sessions Judge Court-Cum-

V Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Vijayawada

for the offences under Sections 5 of Prevention of Immoral

Traffic Act, 1956.

2. The allegation against the petitioners in the charge

sheet is that they were customers, who were caught when the

lodge where the prostitution was taking place, was raided by

the Police. The petitioners have approached this Court under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet in S.C.

No.74 of 2019 on the file of the Mahila Sessions Judge Court-

Cum- V Additional District and Sessions Judge Court,

Vijayawada.

3. Now, the petitioners, who are Accused Nos.3 and 5,

seek quash of the said charge sheet filed against them on the

ground that the said criminal proceedings are not

maintainable against a person who was found at the brothel

house only as a customer. Learned counsel for the petitioners

would submit that this a covered matter and this Court has

earlier in several cases held that a customer who visited the

brothel house for prostitution is not liable for prosecution.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that it is

a covered matter in view of the earlier judgments passed by

this Court to that effect. Therefore, he prayed to pass

appropriate order accordingly in this Criminal Petition.

5. The Karnataka High Court has earlier in the case of Sri

Roopendra Singh vs. State of Karnataka1 held that a

customer who visited brothel house for prostitution is not

liable for prosecution. This Court in Z. Lourdiah Naidu vs.

State of A.P.2 and Goenka Sajan Kumar Vs. The State of

A.P.3 also held that customer who visited the brothel house

for prostitution is not liable for prosecution. Based on the

above said judgments, this Court also earlier quashed the

criminal proceedings initiated against a customer who was

found at the brothel house. Therefore, in view of the settled

Order, dated 20.01.2021, in Crl.P.No.312 of 2020, of the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru.

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

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

law in this regard as stated supra, the charge sheet filed

against the petitioners in S.C. No.74 of 2019 is liable to be

quashed in view of the fact that it is admitted case of the

prosecution that the petitioners are only customers who

visited the brothel house for prostitution.

6. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

aforesaid charge sheet filed against the petitioners who are

Accused Nos.3 and 5 in S.C. No.74 of 2019 on the file of the

Mahila Sessions Judge Court-Cum- V Additional District and

Sessions Judge Court, Vijayawada, is hereby quashed. The

proceedings against the other accused shall go on.

7. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

15.12.2022 MJA

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9951 of 2022

15.12.2022

MJA