Allowed

Sri. Venkata Sarath Babu Bandi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Feb 2025CRLP/2225/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash trafficking proceedings against Accused No.8, alleged customer in a spa raid. The court found no prosecution material proving the victim was trafficked or that the petitioner knew of any trafficking, and quashed the proceedings under Section 370(4)(2) IPC.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner-accused No.8 in S.C.No.335 of 2024 quashed; criminal petition allowed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Sri. Venkata Sarath Babu Bandi Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

132s71

¶3

IVIONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:2225 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri. Venkata Sarath Babu Bandi, S/o Venkata Narsaiah Bandi, Aged 38 years, Occ. Pharmacy Business, R/o H.No. 153, 154, Flat No.402, Siriaipine Avenue, lvlasidbanda, Kondapur, Serilingampally lvlandal, R.R.District. N/o H.No.2-90, Sement Road, Rachamitta Street, Nandanavanam, Prakasham District, A_P. State.

¶9

AND

¶10

Petitioner/Acc used No.8

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. z. I . Sukender Red(y, Sub-lnspector of Police, I/adhapur (Guttala) Police Station, yberabad '

¶12

Res po n d e nts/com pra ina nt

¶13

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., praying that in the circumstances ' stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.C. No. 335 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge Court, R.R.District, at Kukatpally against Accused No.8.

¶14

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶15

Petitjon under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in S.C. No. 335 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cumAssistant Sessions Judge Courl, R.R.District, at Kukatpally including appearance of the Accused No.8 Pending disposal of CRLP 2225 of 2025, on the file of the High Court

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of S. Ram Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the of Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Addl Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI^SRIDEVI

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2225 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Criminal Petition is filed under^{Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik} Suraksha Sanhitha 2023^(for short^{'BNSS'), seeking to quash the} proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.8 in^{S.C.No.335of 2024 on the} file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant^{Sessions Judge,RangaReddy} District at Kukatpally The offence alleged against^{the petitioner-accusedNo.8} is under Section 370(4)(2) of lPC.

¶22

Heard Sri $.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the^{petitioner and} Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public^Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and^perused the^record.

¶23

The case of the^prosecution, in brief, is that, on receiving^credible information about running of^{prostitution,} the Police,^{Madhapur,raided the} premises i.e., H.No.13-1 4-15116, Heaven Spa and Family Saloon, N Square Building, near Dmart, Kavuri Hills Phase-ll, Madhapur of Serilingampally lVlandal and found^{petitioner-accused} No.B in the capacity of^'customer'. Basing on the saio complaint, a case in Crime No.1085 of 2021 was registered against the accused and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, cognizance was taken and the case was numbered as S.C.No.335 o'f 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶24

)

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is innocent, he was falsely implicated in the subject crime. The victim woman who was found in the premises was not a trafficked woman and since the petitioner was a 'customer', the offence alleged against him is not at all attracted. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶26

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial before the Sessions Court, and hence, prayed to dismiss the criminal petition

¶27

For the sake of convenience, Sections 370 and 370(4) of lpC are extracted hereunder:

¶28

'370. Trafficking of a Person: (1)Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transpotls, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, byFirstlv- using threats, or Secorrd/ using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdlv- by abduction, or Fourthlv- by practising fraud, or deception, or Fifthlv- by abuse of power, or Sirthlv- by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transporled, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.

¶29

Explan 1- The expression "exploitation" shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual

¶30

¶31

¶32

exploitatiotl, slavery or practices similar to slavery, seNitude, or the forced removal of organs.

¶33

Explanation 2- The consent of the victim is immaterial in determinalion of the offence of trafficking.

¶34

(!)Whoever commits the offence of trafficking shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall nol be /ess than seven years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶35

(3)Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one person, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be /ess lhan ten years but which may extend to tmprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (!)Where lhe offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall nol be /ess than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶36

(!)Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term whiclt shall not be /ess than foufteen years, but which may extend to mprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. {9)lf^{a per,sonts convictedof the offenceof trafficking of minor} on more than one occasion, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and sha// a/so ne liable to fine.

¶37

(I)When a public servant or a police officer is involved in the trafficking of any person then, such public servant or police officer shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imp|isonment for the remainder of that person's natural life. and shall also be liable to fine."

¶38

Sectlon 3t0(A) of IPC reads as under:

¶39

Exploitation of a trafficked person

¶40

(!)Whoet,er knowingly or having reason to believe that a minor has been trafficked, engages such minor for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished with rigorous imprisontnent for a term which shall nol be /ess than five years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to f ine.

¶41

Q)Whoever,^{knowingly by} or having reason to betieve that a person has been trafficked, engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonntent for a term which sha not be /ess than three

¶42

¶43

¶44

years, but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶45

To invoke the provision of law under Section 370(AX2) of IpC, there should be proof to show that trafficking of a person and engagement of such person for sexuar exproitation by any one, knowingry or having reason to believe that such person has been trafficked. so, it is for the prosecution to bring on record the evidence that there is a reason inter aria to berieve that the victims are trafficked by engaged persons for sexuar exproitation. As seen from the entire case record, the victim stated that she was doing prostitution for the sake of money and she joined brother house and given her willingness to do sex with customers. since no materiar is produced by the prosecution to prove that the victim woman was trafficked, she was ' engaged for sexuar exproitation and as the petitioner had no knowredge that the victim woman was trafficked for the purpose of prostitution, the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under section 370(AX2) of lPC, are liable to be quashed.

¶46

B. ln view of the aforesaid discussion, the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.8 in s.c.No.335 of 2024 on the fire of the Senior civir Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpaily, are hereby quashed.

¶47

¶48

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶49

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

Sd/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I ^^I W SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

The senior civil Judge-cum-Assistant sessions Judge court, R.R.District. at Kukatpally

¶53

The Station House Officer, Madhapur ( Guttala) police Station, Cyberabad District

¶54

One CC to Sri S. Ram Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶55

, 4. Two CCs to PUBLTC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderab;d [oUT]

¶56

Two CD copres.

BJLB/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:,1710212025

ORDER

CRLP.No.2225 of 2025

(," ?T ilf;R TM

r'

CRIMINAL PETITIOhI IS ALLOWED

Sri. Venkata Sarath Babu Bandi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Venkata Sarath Babu Bandi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chennarapu Sujatha Vs The State of Telangana

Chennarapu Ranjith Vs The State of Telangana

Tajunnisa Vs The State of Telangana

Jillellamudi Venkata Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana

Komi Sudakar Reddy @ Sudhakar Shiva @ K.Sudhakar, Vs The State of Telangana

Bhukya. Ram Dev Vs The State of Telangana