A criminal petition sought quashing of proceedings against a customer charged under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The court held that customers are not offenders under the Act and quashed the proceedings as an abuse of process.
Quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A.3 in C.C.No.1016 of 2014.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1795 of 2015 ORDER:
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner/A.3 seeks quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.1016 of 2014 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad.
2) The petitioner/Accused No.3 along with A1, A2 and A4 is accused of committing offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”). On the evening of 09.09.2014, the Police of Sanathnagar P.S, Cyberabad raided the residential House bearing No.13-1-89, Plot No.139/B, Near Kabirnagar Bus Stop, Motinagar, Sanathnagar, Cyberabad and found the said premises being used for prostitution. A.1 and A.2 were said to be the brothel house organizers, whereas A.3 and A.4 are the customers. The police registered crime and investigating the matter.
3) Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that none of the Sections 3, 4 and 5 or other sections of the Act describe a customer as offender and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner/A.3 is abuse of process of law and hence the proceedings against him may be quashed.
accused and liable for prosecution.
5) I find force in the submission of petitioner. Section 3 of the Act deals with punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Section 4 of the Act deals with punishment for living on the earnings of the prostitution. Section 5 of the Act deals with procuring, inducing or taking persons for the sake of prostitution. Obviously, the allegation against the petitioner/A.3 is not that of either running brothel house or procuring women for the purpose of prostitution or that he is living by earning money on prostitution. He was booked along with other accused only as a customer of the flesh trade. Therefore, Sections 3 to 5 are not applicable to him. It is interesting to note that none of the other penal provisions in the Act either describe him as an offender. Therefore, there is any amount of force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that a customer to the flesh trade cannot be treated as an offender under the Act. This aspect is no more res integra and we are fortified by atleast two judgments of this High
Court viz., Goenka Sajan Kumar vs. The State of A.P .[1] and Z. Lourdiah Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[2] . In these two cases, the petitioners were admittedly the customers to a brothel house. Consequently, the proceedings against them were quashed holding that the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked for prosecuting
them.
6) Having regard to the facts and above precedential jurisprudence on the subject in issue, it is clear that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.
7) In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against petitioner/A.3 in C.C.No.1016 of 2014 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judgecum-XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
Date: 19.03.2015 scs
[1] 2014(2)ALD(Cri)264 [2] 2013(2)ALD(Cri)393
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a customer of a brothel house can be prosecuted as an offender under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
Whether criminal proceedings against a customer constitute an abuse of process of law and are maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Goenka Sajan Kumar vs. The State of A.PRelied on¶7
Goenka Sajan Kumar vs. The State of A.P
Z. Lourdiah Naidu vs. State of Andhra PradeshRelied on¶7
Z. Lourdiah Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.3
The State of A.P
U.Durga Prasad Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
