Partly allowed

Thanna Bharagav Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Jul 2022CRLP/5999/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in part. The Court held that a brothel customer is not liable under Sections 3-5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act but may be liable under Section 370-A IPC for exploiting a trafficked person. Consequently, proceedings related to the IT Act were quashed, while proceedings under IPC were continued.

What did the court decide?

Quashed of proceedings under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act; proceedings under Section 370-A IPC continued.

Thanna Bharagav Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^DT. JUSTICE^{CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITIO^{N NO: 5999OF 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Thanna Bharagav Kumar,^{S/o.T.Venkata Ramana Aged about26 years,occ...Junior} Enoineer in Sbl^{(Bellampally,Fl,to.STC Hostel, TainakaHyderabad,N/o.H.No.40-} 21d, Naidu Cotony^{aobuiti, Vijayanagaram,A.P.}

¶8

...PETITIONERYACCUSED^{NO. 4}

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Public ProsecutorHigh Court of} Telangana, HYderabad.

¶11

T.Kiran Kumar,^{lnspectorof Police Nacharam Police Station'}

¶12

...RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO^COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition, the High court may be} pleased to quash the^{proceedingsin P.R.C.No.20of 2022 on the file of court of} the District and sessions^{Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,registered} U/Sec.370 A⁽²⁾ lPC,^{Sec.3, 4 and 5 of PITA Act againstthe petitioner'}

¶14

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶15

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition, the High court may be} pleased to grant stay of all further^{proceedings in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022 on the file} of court of the District^{and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Districtat L.B.Nagar,} pending disposal of the above Criminal^petition.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Rajinikanth Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

Dr.(.1L, J Crl. P.,'o. 5999 oJ 20? 2

¶19

HON'BLE DT.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5999 of 2022

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Seeking to quash the proceedings that a,re pending against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.2O of 2022 before the Court of District & Sessior-rs Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, the present criminal petition is filed.

¶23

Heard the submissions of learned colrnsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of his submissions contended that petitioner cannot be punished either under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956J or under the provisions of Indian Pena-l Code (for short 1PC') and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is unsustainable.

¶25

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor stated that the presence of the petitioner was clearly found by the police at the scene of offence and

¶26

I)r.(-51.. J ( rl.l'..\it-5999 of )0) 2

¶27

"t-

¶28

therefore, he u,as taken into custody and thus the proceedings are sustainable

¶29

The facts of the case in nutshell as could be perceived through the contents of charge sheet are that the Accused Nos. I and 3 are known to each other. Accusecl No.3 used to supply women to Accused No.1. The Accused No.1 took a flat at Bapujinagar, Nacharam on a monthly rent of Rs.5000/- and was running a brothel house. Accused No.2 used to assist Accused No. 1. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were earning through prostitution. Accused No.1 was paying Rs.100/- to the Accused No.2 for each customer brought by him. The Accused No.3 supplied the victim girl artd he also sent one customer i.e., the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as Accused No.4, to the flat of Accused No.1 on 22.09.2021. On credible information police conducted raid and apprehended Accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner herein-Accused No.4 and also the victim girl.

¶30

Basing on the above set of facts, the Inspector of Police, Nacharam Police Station, Rachakonda District submitted charge sheet contending that^{the Accused Nosrl,}

¶31

Dr-( SL. J ( . P..'o.5999 of 2022

¶32

¶33

2 and 4 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 3ZO (A) (ii) of IpC and Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Acr, 1956.

¶34

As earlier narrated, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-Accused No.4 is that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner would not fall either within the purview of provisions contained in Indian Pena_l Code or under the provisions of the Act, 1956.

¶35

B. Under Article 23 of the Constitution of India, traffic in human beings is prohibited. In the year igSO, the Government of India ratified an international convention for the suppression of traffic in person and prevention of exploitation of women through prostitution. Thereafter, the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 was enacted. Subsequently, the said Act has been amended. By Act, 44 of 19g6, the title of the Act has been changed from Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women ald Girls Act to Immoral Traffic (prevention) Act. Further, for the words "women and girls, and ..women or girl", the words "persons,, and ,.person, have respectively

¶36

¶37

¶38

Dr.(.t1.,.1 ('rl.l'. \o.5t)Qt) 4 )01)

¶39

-(t-

¶40

been substituted. Thus, the Act now prohibirs traffic in

¶41

human beings.

¶42

Though, the word trafficking is not specifically defined in the Immoral Tralfic (prevention) Act, 1956, we can find such a definition in Section 370 of IpC. The said

¶43

provision reads as under :

¶44

"37O.- Trafficking of person.-(11 Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation,. (al recruits, (b) itansports, 1c1 frariori.s, 1ay transfers, or {el receives, a person or persons, by_

¶45

First -using threats, or

¶46

Secondly -usiag force, or any othet form of coercion, or

¶47

Thirdly -by abduction, or

¶48

Fourthly -by practising fraud, or deception, or

¶49

Fifthly - by abuse of power, or

¶50

Sixthly - by inducemeut, including the giving or receiving of payments or beaelits, ln order to achieve the-consent of any persoa having control over the person recrulted., transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits t1"-.]fJr.". or trafficking.

¶51

ExplaEation l.-The expression,,exploitation,, shall include aay- l:t -of physical exploitation or aay form of sexual exploitation, stavery or pracdces siiilar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs.

¶52

Explanation 2.-The consetlt of the victim is immaterlal in detertnination of the offence of trafflckiag.

¶53

(2) Whoever commits the offence of trafficking shall be nuli-sUej^with rigorous imprlsonEent for a term Snict st att not be lcss than seven years, but which lrray extend to ten years, and shalt also be liable to fine.

¶54

(31 Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than orre person, tt shall be punlshable -itt rigorous I

¶55

¶56

l,r

¶57

Dt.('.tL, J ( rl. P..\o.5999 oJ )l):)

¶58

imprisonment for a tcrm which shall not be less than ten years but which rnay extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to {ine.

¶59

Section 3 of the Act, 1956 prescribes punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing the premises to be used as brothel. Section 4 of the Act, 1956, prescribes punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. Likewise, Section 5 of the Act, 1956, prescribes punishment for procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution. Therefore, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, those provisions does not attract to the customer who approaches a brothel house or a woman in prostitution. Thus, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner_Accused No.4, even as per the version of prosecution who is the customer, under the provisions of Sections 3 to 5 of the Act, 1956 is un-desirable. However, Section 370_A IpC prohibits exploitation of traffic in person. The said provision reads as under :

¶60

"37OA. Exploitation of a trafficked person._(1) Whoever, knowingly or having reason to believe ihat a _ir,l, t." U".r, trafficked, r.n,urrrru*.$"U- ergages be punished such minor for with rlgorous sexual i,r,irisonrnent for "*ptoii.iioo i., "..ya term *hica shall not be less than five years-, but which rnay extend to seven yeals, and shall also be iiable to fiae.

¶61

Z
I

¶62

Dr.(.\L,.1 ( rl.P.\o.5999 of J0) )

¶63

¶64

(2) whoever, knowingly by or having reason to believe that^a person has been traffickcd, engages such pcrson for^sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be^punished with^rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than^three years, but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."

¶65

Thus, by the above^provisions, it is^clear that^r,r,hoever knowingly or having reason to believe that a minor or^a person has been trafficked, engages such minor or^person for sexual exploitation, shall be^punished.

¶66

Similar view has been expressed by this Court^{in the} case of Goneka Sajan Kumar Vs State of A.Pl and^{in the} case ofZ. Lourdiah Naidu and another^Vs State^ofA.P2.

¶67

In the case on hand, the acts committed^{by the} petitioner-Accused No.4 as per the contents of charge^sheet squa.rely fall within the ambit of Section^{370-4 (ii) IPC.} Therefore, this Court is of the^view that the^{proceedings for} the said offence are liable to be continued.^{No other} ground is urged or established by the petitioner^basingon which the proceedings can be^{quashed.Therefore,this}

¶68

'(2014)2^ALD(cri)264 'lzotllznLD^(cri)393

¶69

Dr.( .91 . J (-rl.l'..'tt. i 9()9 oj )012

¶70

¶71

Court considers it desirable to allow this criminal petition ln part

¶72

Resultantly, the Crimina-l Petition is allowed-in-part. The proceedings that are pending against the petitionerAccused No.4 before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in p.R.C.No.2O of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act, 1956 are hereby quashed. The proceedings against the petitioner-Accused No.4 shall however be continued in the said P.R.C., as far as the offence punishable under section 370-A (ii) IpC is concerned.

¶73

I 5. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of.

¶74

Pending miscellaleous petitions, if any, shall stand close

¶75

SD/-M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶76

//TRUE COPY//

¶77

¶78

sEcrottb FFICER

¶79

Fair Copy to^{the Hon'ble Hon'bleDr. Justice Chillakur Justice ChillakurSumalatha}

¶80

(For His Lbrdships Kind Perusal)Perusal) To, 1. The District & Sessions^{Judge, Ranga Reddy Districtat L.B.Nagar.} 2. The lV Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Cyberabadat L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District'} 3. The Station House^{Oflicer, Nacharam Police Station, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy} District.

¶81

1. Two CC s to Public^{Prosecutor, High courtfor the stateof Telangana at Hyderabad} 5. 1'l L.R. Copies 6. The Under'Secretary,^{Union of lndia Ministry of Law , Justice and companyAffairs,} New Delhi

¶82