Disposed

Pulipati Srihari v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC8 Aug 2022CRLP/6806/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of two Criminal Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings. The Court held that while Sections 3 to 5 of the Immoral Trafficking Act do not attract customers, such acts may fall under Section 370-A IPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petitions 6806 and 6807 of 2022 disposed; proceedings not quashed on section 3-5 PIT Act grounds but continued for investigation under IPC 370-A.

Pulipati Srihari Vs The State of Telangana and another — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 6806 AND 6807 OF²⁰²²

¶6

cRL.P.NO.6806 0F 2022:

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pulipati Srihari, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Age 25^years, Occ Software^Engineer, Rl/o.Pragathi Paradise Homes, Pragathi Nagar, Hyderabad. N/o.Peddamogalayapally, Medapuram, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh ...PETITIONERYACCUSED NO.9

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court^Buildings, High Court, Hyderabad, through SHO, P.S.Madhapur, Cyberabad ....RespondenU Complainant

¶11

2 Sub lnspector of Police, P.S.Madhapur, Cyberabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the HighCourt maybe} pleased to quash the proceedings against Accused No.9 in FIR No.715 of 2022 on the file of Police Station, lvladhapur, Cyberabad^{and pass such other orderor} orders may deem fit.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of^Cr. P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the High Coun maybe} pleased to stay all further proceedings against Accused No.9 in FIR No.715^of 2O22 on the file of Police Station, Madhapur,^{Cyberabadand pass such other} order or orders may deem fit and^{properin the circumstancesof the case}

¶16

CRL.P.NO.6807 OF 2022i

¶17

Between:

¶18

Pothedar Srinivasulu, S/o.Veera Bhadraiah,^{aged 35 years, Occ:PrivateJob,} Rl/o.SP Ragai, Nizampet X Road, Kukatpally,^{Hyderabad, N/o.Q.No.3778, Type-3,} ODF Estate, Yddumailaram,^{Medak District.}

¶19

.....Petitioner/ Accused No.11

¶20

And

¶21

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court, Hyderabad, through SHO, P.S.Madhapur, Cyberabad

¶22

....RespondenU Complainant

¶23

Sub lnspector of Police, P.S.Madhapur, Cyberabad

¶24

..RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶25

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in FIR No.715 of 2022 on the file of Police Station, It/adhapur, Cyberabad and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶26

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶27

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P-C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against Petitioner in FIR No.715 ol 2022 on the file of Police Station, Madhapur, Cyberabad and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶28

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of M/s.Disha Law Firm, Advocate for the Petitioner in both Crl.Ps and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE DT.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶32

CRIMINAL PETITION No.68O6 OF 2022

¶33

AND

¶34

CRIMINAL PETITION No.68O7 OF 2o22

¶35

COMMON ORDER:-

¶36

The person who is figured as Accused No.9 in Crime No.715 of 2022 of Madhapur Police Station, moved Criminal Petition No.6806 of 2022 and the person who is figured as Accused No. I 1 in the same case, moved Criminal petition No.68O7 of 2022, seeking quash of the proceedings that are pending against them.

¶37

Heard the submission of the learned counsel lor the petitioners/Accused Nos.9 & 1 1 as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶38

The facts of the case in nutshell as per the version of the Prosecuting Agency is that on 19.O7.2022, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Madhapur Police Station, received credible information regarding the prostitution that is being organized and carried out at Deekshitha Saloon and Spa', Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District. On that, making a General Diary (GD) entry and obtaining permission from the superior oflicer, the said SubInspector of Police visited thc said saloon along with his staff. On interrogation, the person present at the reception, besides

¶39

Dr.CSL,-l arl.P.Nos.6806 and 68 07 o12022

¶40

revealing his identity particulars, also informed that under the instructions of one S.V.Raja Ram Prasad, a brothel house is being run. The petitioners/A-9 & A-11 were found indulged in sexual intercourse with the girls present at two different rooms. On that a search-cum-seizure panchanama was prepared and the incriminating material, which includes, cash, cellphone, condoms, etc., were seized.

¶41

Making a submission that the petitioners have not committed any offences what so ever, more particularly, the offences punishable under Sections 3 to 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases contended that the petitioners are innocent. Learned counsel also stated that the aliegations made are absurd and inherently improbable. The learned counsel stated that no prudent person can never reach a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners and indeed, the police deiiberately impleaded the petitioners in this case and hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶42

Per contra, the learned Assistant Pubiic Prosecutor contended that as the petitioners^were caught red handed^while being involved in sexual intercourse^with the^victims, a case was

¶43

¶44

OT.CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.6805 and 6aO7 ol 2022

¶45

booked against them and indeed, there is sufficient material to show that they are customers and thus, on completion of investigation, hnal report would be filed.

¶46

Whether a customer would fall within the ambit of the provisions of Prevention of Immoral Traflic Act or not was extensively dealt with by this Court in the decision that is rendered in Criminal Petition No.5999 of 2O22 dated I t.O7.2022 (bg Hon'ble Dr.Justice Chillakur Sumalatha). In the said decision, the observations of the Court, more particularly, at Paras 10 to 13, are as under:-

¶47

47O. Section 3 oj the Act, 1956 prescribes punishment for^{keeplnga brothel} or allouing the^pretnises to be used^q.s brothel. Section 4 of the Act, 7956, prescribes punishnent for living on the earnings of prostitution. Llkewise, Section 5 oJ the Act, 7956, prescribes punishment for procuring, lnducing or taking person for^{the sake} of^{prostitutlon.} Therefore, as rightlg stbmltted. bg learned counsel for the petltloner, those provisions d.oes n.ot attrqct to the customer uho approaches q brothel house or cL utotrlo:tt in prostltution. Thus, this Court is oJ the uieut thof contlnuatlon of proceedings a:gainst the petltionerAccused No.4, even as per the aersion of trtrosecution who is the customer, under the provisions of Sections 3 to 5 of the Act, 1956 is un-desirable. Houeaer, Section 37O-A IPC prohibits explaitation of traffic in persot), The sald provlslon reads a.s und.er:

¶48

¶49

DT.CSLJ Crl.P.Nos.6806 and 6807 ol 2022

¶50

'37OA"^{Explottationof atrafJlckedperson.lT) Whoeaer,''} knouinglg or having reason to belleue that s minor hos been trafJicked, engd.ges such minor fot sexuql exploitation ln ang manner, shall be punlshed wlth rigorous imprisonment lor a term ,/uhlch shqll not be less than fiue gears, but whlch mag extend to seaen gears, and shall also be lldble to Jine.

¶51

(2) Whoeoer, knoutlnglg bg or haalng reason to believe th.at o. person has beerl traffrcked, eagages such person for sexuo.l exploitdtion ln ang manner, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term whlch shall not be less than three gears, but ushlch mag ertend to Jiae gears, and shall also be liable to fine""

¶52

77" Thus, bg the dboue prot islons, it is clear that whoeaer knouinglg or hdving reason to believe thrrt a milaor or^q person hrrs been trafficked, engages such miftor or person for sexual exploitation, shall be punished.

¶53

Similor oleut has been expressed bg this Court in the case of Goneka Sajc,n Kumar Vs Sta:te of A.P1 and in the case of Z" Lourdiah Naldu dnd another Vs Stcte oJA.P

¶54

In the crrse on hand, the acts committed bg the petitioner-Accused No.4 as per the contents of chdrge sheet squarelg Jall utithin the dmbit of Section 37O-A (iill IPc."

¶55

7 . Thus, by the above decision, it is clearly indicated that Sections 3 to 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act does not attract the customers. However, Section 37O-A IPC attracts.

¶56

'(zotq)^z aLo^(cri)zoa

¶57

.-''1anr:1 2 ALD (cri) 393

¶58

¶59

DT.CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.6806 and 6801 ol 2022

¶60

Indicating the same view, the Criminal Petitions are disposed of.^. The Investigating Oflicer shall take note of the fact that Sections 3 to 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traflic Act does not cover the acts of the customers who are found involved in the acts pertaining to which the Prevention of Immoral Trafffic Act is legislated. However, the customers would fall within the ambit of Section 370-A IPC. Therefore, in case, convincing material is found attracting the said provision, the Investigating Agency can proceed with the filing of final report on completion of investigation in respect of the said provision or in respect of any other provisions, except the provisions covered under Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act.

¶61

B. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

¶62

pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

t I

Sd/-T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qD

¶67

SECTION OFFICER

¶68

1 . The Xll Metrooolitan [r/agistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpaily. 2. The Station xbuse onicdr, Folil" gt"ti;;, ffihu?,i rt Cyberabad, at Hyderabad.

¶69

3 lwo CCs to the Assistant.public prosecutor, High Court - ----'- ' "i'" v' for the State of .^{T^elanganaat Hyderabad (OUT)} j. _One CC to M/s. Disha Lail Firrir, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies

¶70