Perni Rahul vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 3179 Tel

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                       CRL.P.No.9714 OF 2015

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to

quash proceedings against the petitioner, who is A-7 in P.R.C.No.5 of

2015 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga

Reddy District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A-7 and the learned

Assistant Pubic Prosecutor representing the State.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on credible

information of organized prostitution received on 18.01.2015,

the police conducted raid at the house of

A-5 at Srinivas colony, Manikonda and found A-5 and

A-6 indulging in prostitution with victims Pooja @Purvi

(LW.5) and Dimple (LW.6) with A-7 and apprehended them on the

same day. Thereafter, police, Gachibowli Police Station registered a

case in Crime No.16 of 2015 of Gachibowli Police Station,

Cyberabad District for the offences punishable under Sections 3,4,5

and 6 of Immoral traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short "the Act")

and 370 (a) (2) IPC. After completion of investigation, the police 2 ASR,J crlp_9714_2015

filed charge sheet before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate of First

Class, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, R.R.District in PRC.No.5 of 2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

only a customer, who visited the said brothel house for prostitution on

payment made to other accused and as per the settled law in this

regard, customer is not liable for prosecution for any of the offences

registered against him. Therefore, allowing the proceedings to be

continued against him would amount to abuse of process of Court.

5. In similar circumstances, this Court allowed Crl.P.No. 7756 of

2015 vide order, dated 07.09.2015 and the Andhra Pradesh High

Court allowed Crl.P.No.2900 of 2022 vide order, dated 21.04.2022,

by following the dictum laid down in Sri Roopendra Singh v.State of

Karnataka1 and Goenka Sajan Kumar v.State of A.P2 and quashed

the proceedings against the accused therein, who visited the brothel

house for prostitution, on the ground that they are mere customers and

they are not liable for prosecution either for the offence under Section

3 or under Section 6 of the Act.

1 Crl.P.No.312 of 2020 dated 20.01.2021, Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru 2 2014 (2) ALD (crl) 264 3 ASR,J crlp_9714_2015

6. Coming to the present case, the petitioner/A-7 is only a

customer, who visited the brothel house for prostitution. Further, the

facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgments cited

supra. As such, this Court is of the view that continuation of the

present proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

7. For the reasons stated above, the Criminal Petition is

allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/A-7 in P.R.C.No.5

of 2015 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga

Reddy District, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending shall stand closed.

                                      __________________________
                                          A.SANTHOSH REDDY,J

30.06.2022
Nvl
                  4                     ASR,J
                              crlp_9714_2015




HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
                       5                       ASR,J
                                     crlp_9714_2015




             CRL.P.No.9714 OF 2015

30.06.2022
Nvl