Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Subhani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9255 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed
seeking quash of charge sheet in P.R.C.No.56 of 2021 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special
Mobile Court, Guntur.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The petitioner is A-3 in P.R.C.No.56 of 2021 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Special Mobile Court, Guntur. The said case arises out of
Crime No.326 of 2021 of Kothapet Police Station.
4. Initially, a case in the above crime was registered
for the offences punishable under Section 370 (3) Indian
Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the
Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act on the ground that
when the police raided the brothel house that the petitioner
was found in the premises of the brothel house as a
customer, who visited the brothel house for prostitution. On
completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet
against the petitioner and other accused.
5. Now, the petitioner, who is A-3, seeks quash of
the said charge sheet filed against him 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 petitioner would submit
that this is 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.
6. Learned Additional 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.
7. The Karnataka High Court has earlier in the case
of Sri Roopendra Singh v. State of Karnataka1 held that a
Order, dated 20.01.2021, in Crl.P.No.312 of 2020, of the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru.
customer who visited brothel house for prostitution is not
liable for prosecution. This Court in Z. Lourdiah Naidu v.
State of A.P.2 and Goenka Sajan Kumar v. the State of
A.P3 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
law in this regard as stated supra, the charge sheet filed
against the petitioner in P.R.C. No.56 of 2021 is liable to be
quashed in view of the fact that it is admitted case of the
prosecution that the petitioner is only a customer who visited
the brothel house for prostitution.
8. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and
the aforesaid charge sheet filed against the petitioner, who is
A-3, in P.R.C.No.56 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, is
2013 (2) ALD (Cri) 393 = 2014 (1) ALT (Cri) 322 (A.P.)
2014 (2) ALD (Cri) 264 = 2015 (1) ALT (Cri) 85 (A.P)
hereby quashed. The proceedings against the other accused
shall go on. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
22.11.2022
BSM
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9255 of 2022
22-11-2022
BSM
