Telangana High Court
E. Jitender Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 30 June, 2025
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7927 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking
quashment of the proceedings in C.C No.4612 of 2018 on the file of
the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Secunderabad, against the petitioners - Accused No.3.
2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 17.04.2018, the
complainant and his team visited the premises bearing GHMC No. 1-8-
450/1/A, Flat No. 3B, Victoria Castle, Indian Airlines Colony,
Begumpet, Hyderabad. Upon receiving information that offences under
the PITA Act were being committed under the guise of Ayurveda
therapy, a search was conducted. The allegation against the petitioner
is that he was found to be a customer within the said premises, and a
charge sheet has been filed against him for an offence punishable
under Section 5(c) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
3. Heard Mr. Ramavaram chandrashekar reddy, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the materials
placed by the prosecution, and the allegations made, even if taken at
face value, do not constitute any offence against the petitioner. He
submits that, as per the averments, the petitioner was found within the
premises but not in the company of the victim. Furthermore, the
alleged offence does not make out a prima facie case against the
petitioner for trial. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against
the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. He
further placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Dr.Billakanti
Venkatesh v. State of Telangana 1 and Dilip Jana Vs. State of West
Bengal 2.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner
was found at the premises where the offence took place, and the
offence alleged against the petitioner falls under Section 5(c) of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. This provision pertains to an
attempt to take a person, or cause a person to be taken, from one
place to another with the intent that such person engage in, or be
trained to engage in, prostitution. Since the presence of the petitioner
at the scene is established, the defence and other related aspects are
[2025 LawSuit (TS) 41]
[2009 SCC OnLine Cal 1569]
matters to be considered during trial. Therefore, interference at this
stage is not warranted.
6. I have perused the materials on record.
7. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was present at the
scene at the relevant point of time. However, a perusal of the
copy of the mediator's report does not reveal the name of the
petitioner. Further, the statements of the victims, i.e., LWs.4 to 6,
do not mention the petitioner anywhere, although they assert
certain aspects against the other accused. Even if the petitioner's
presence within the premises is taken at face value, for the mere
fact of his presence, there is no material to show any overt act or
involvement in the commission of the alleged offence.
8. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, except for the presence of the petitioner at the premises
and the alleged confessional panchanama of Accused No.1,
there is no other material to show the petitioner's involvement or
attempt in committing the offence. Therefore, the continuance of
proceedings against him for the offence under Section 5(c) of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, is not found to be
justifiable.
9. Furthermore, Section 5(c) deals with the procuring or
inducing of any person to be taken from one place to another for
the purpose of prostitution. In broader terms, it punishes the act
of procurement or even an attempt to procure a person without
the consent of such person for the purpose of prostitution.
10. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in Hasina Bee v. State
of Madhya Pradesh 3, while considering this aspect and
interpreting the scope of Section 5 of the PITA Act, observed that
taking or inducing a person from one place to another with a view
to engaging in prostitution or becoming an inmate of a brothel has
been made punishable under this Section. Even if the act of
prostitution has taken place elsewhere, the offence must
demonstrate that the accused had taken the prosecutrix from a
particular place with the intention of causing or inducing her to
engage in prostitution.
11. In this view, the allegations made against the petitioner fall
short of satisfying the ingredients required to attract the
provisions of the alleged Section. On the other hand, Section
370-A of the IPC deals with situations where a person, knowingly
or having reason to believe that another person is a victim of
trafficking, engages such person for sexual exploitation.
12. In the present case, except for the petitioner's mere
presence at the place of the alleged offence, there is not even a
specific allegation that would fall within the scope of either
Section 5(c) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, or
Section 370-A(2) of the IPC. For this reason, the continuance of
the prosecution against the petitioner is found to be an abuse of
the process of law.
13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the
proceedings against the petitioner - Accused No.3 in Charge Sheet
No. 4612 of 2018 are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition,
if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
Date: 30.06.2025
nsk/dsv
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7927 of 2025
DATE: 30.06.2025
dsv/nsk
