Allowed

Anunay Agarwal v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Feb 2020CRLP/7720/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against a petitioner arising from allegations under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, relying on the established ratio that brothel customers are not liable under those sections.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1427 of 2014 filed against petitioner/A.2 are quashed; pending miscellaneous petitions are disposed of.

Anunay Agarwal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7720 OF 2019.

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner/A.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1427 of 2014, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet, the petitioner is the customer. As per rulings of several High Courts as well as A.P. High Court, a customer cannot be prosecuted under Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act”). In the light of the specific observations made by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.P.No.4161 of 2014 dated 09.06.2014 in Goenka Sanjan Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, case registered against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

¶6

In the above cited judgment, the combined High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held as under:

¶7

“The customer of brothel house does not fall under provisions of Sections 3 to 7 of Act, 1956 and therefore not liable for punishment under provisions of Sections 4,3 and 5 of the Act, 1956 and consequently, prosecution of petitioner, one of the customer of brothel house, for offences punishable under provisions of Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Act, 1956; is unjust and case against him liable to be quashed”.

¶8

In view of the ratio laid down in the above mentioned judgment,

¶9

the proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 are liable to be quashed.

¶10

¶11

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.1427 of 2014, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. No order as to costs.

¶12

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also

¶13

stand disposed of.

¶14

________________ J. UMA DEVI, J

¶15

Date.26.02.2020. Gk

¶16

¶17

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶18

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7720 OF 2019.

¶20

Date:26.02.2020.

¶21

Gk.

Anunay Agarwal v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anunay Agarwal v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panam Vijay Kumar at Vijay Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Sreeramulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Devella at Diwela Venkata Subramanyam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Muvva Sandeep Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karri Appa Rao Vs State of Ap

Janumuri Srinivasu at Narayana Nagendra Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh