Telangana High Court
Shaik Shahameer vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 30 April, 2021
Bench: G Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3611 of 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.185 of 2021 of
Madhapur (Guttala) Police Station, Cyberabad.
2. The brief facts which led to filing of the present Criminal
Petition are that the above crime was registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 370-A (2) and 188 of I.P.C. and Sections
3 to 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, with an allegation
that on 20.02.2021 at about 20.00 hours, on credible information
that organized prostitution is going on at Studio 11, H.No.1-
96/8/13, Techno Polosis building, 1st floor, Opp: Image Hospital,
Arunodaya Colony, Madhapur, the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Madhapur, after obtaining permission from the concerned
authority, proceeded to the said place, along with staff and
witnesses and on search, found some persons in the cabin. On
enquiry, they revealed that the owner and organizer by name Syed
Ismail of the Spa knowingly hired/engaged them for physical and
sexual exploitation by force and indulging to give payments and
five persons, who are the customers, were came for sexual
enjoyment by paying an amount. A-1, who is the organizer and
owner of the spa, and A-2 to A-6, who are the customers, were
red-handedly caught by the police and seized 14 mobile phones, 09
condom packets and net cash of Rs.9,140/- from their possession.
After following the procedure prescribed, the police registered a
case in Crime No.1285 of 2021 for the offences punishable under
Sections 370(A) (2) and 188 of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of
Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.5 submits
that even accepting the allegations in the charge sheet to be true,
the petitioner/accused No.5 is only a customer and not an
organizer of brothel house. He further submits that Sections 3, 4
and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act would not be
attracted to the customers, who were present at the venue, where
the alleged brothel house has been running. Hence, the
proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that
petitioner/accused No.5 is liable for charge under Section 370A
I.P.C and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. An identical issue came up for consideration before this
Court in S.Naveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana1 wherein
this Court, while quashing the proceedings against the customer
under Section 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, directed
the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 370-A IPC against
the customer.
(2015) 2 ALD (Crl.) 156 (AP)
7. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to
Section 370-A of I.P.C. which reads as under:
"370-A. Exploitation of a trafficked person.--(1)
Whoever, knowingly or having reason to believe that a
minor has been trafficked, engages such minor for
sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than five years, but which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever, knowingly by or having reason to believe
that a person has been trafficked, engages such person
for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be
punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than three years, but which may
extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."
8. Here, the petitioner/accused No.5 was not the person, who
trafficked any person, for any of the purposes referred to above,
but he was only a customer. Therefore, he is liable to be
prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 370-A (2) of
I.P.C.
9. In view of the judgment referred to above and having
regard to the fact that the petitioner/accused No.5 is only a
customer, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.5 for
the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are liable to be quashed while
permitting the Magistrate concerned to proceed further against the
petitioner/accused No.5 for the offence punishable under Section
370-A (2) of I.P.C.
10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.5 in Crime No.185
of 2021 of Madhapur (Guttala) Police Station, Cyberabad,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6
of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act only are hereby quashed
while permitting the Investigating Authority concerned to proceed
further against the petitioner/A-5 for the offence punishable under
Section 370-A (2) of I.P.C.
11. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending
in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
________________
JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
30.04.2021
gkv
