Allowed

Kunibilla Janardhan v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jun 2022CRLP/3788/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet. Relying on settled law that customers at brothels are not liable for prosecution, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, A-4 in P.R.C.No.56 of 2021, while allowing proceedings against other accused to continue.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the charge sheet filed against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.56 of 2021; proceedings against other accused shall continue.

Kunibilla Janardhan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3788 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

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.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶6

The petitioner is A-4 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.

¶7

Initially, a case in the above crime was registered for the offences punishable under Section 370(3) IPC 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.

¶8

Now, the petitioner, who is A-4, 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.

¶9

¶10

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.

¶11

The Karnataka High Court has earlier in the case of Sri Roopendra Singh v. State of Karnataka¹ held that a 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.

¶12

Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the aforesaid charge sheet filed against the petitioner, who is A-4, in P.R.C.No.56 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, is hereby quashed. The proceedings against the other accused shall go on.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶15

Date: 14.06.2022 AKN

¶16