under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash = Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).= Mere perusal of the provisions above mentioned would clearly establish that a person who involves himself with intent to satisfy his sexual urge cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the Act. As such, this Court is of the view that the present complaint against the petitioner is erroneous and without any legal basis and the petitioner cannot be punished under the provisions of the Act. Hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the above Crime are liable to be quashed.

PETITIONER		RESPONDENT
V. BALACHANDER REDDY,	VS	THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD., & 4 OTHERS,
PET.ADV. : VIJAY PISSAY		RESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Quash the F.I.R		DISTRICT:  HYDERABAD

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4095 OF 2013

ORDER:

          This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.6, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.66 of 2013 of Banjara Hills Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6  and 7 (1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).

          According to the prosecution, 

on credible information that one person is running a brothel house at H.No.8-2-318/18/1/B,
Zehara Nagar, Banjara Hills Road No.10, Hyderabad, on 22.1.2013,  the Inspector of Police along with staff and mediators conducted search and found three female sex workers viz., (

1) Rituparna Podder; 

2) Sojia Khatoon; 

(3) Anjali Mukarjee, and 

four customers viz., 

1) G. Anand Reddy; 

2) M. Madan 

3) S. Venugopal Reddy and 

4) V. Balchander Reddy (petitioner herein). 

On interrogation, K. Srikantha Reddy, Sub-organizer, confessed that about six months back, he got acquainted with one Ramesh, R/o Hyderabad and he asked him to work as sub-organizer and look after the brothel house being run by the said Ramesh.

Heard.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 

the petitioner used to visit the said house for massage in response to the advertisements and at the time of search, he sat in the hall and therefore, he cannot be treated as customer and the ingredients of Section 7 of the Act would not attract.

          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 speaks about the punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution.  

Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act prescribes punishment for causing or inducing a person to carry on prostitution. 

 Section 7 (1) of the Act speaks about a person, who carries on prostitution and the person with whom such prostitution is carried on in any premises.

          Mere perusal of the provisions above mentioned would clearly establish that a person who involves himself with intent to satisfy his sexual urge cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the Act.  

As such, this Court is of the view that the present complaint against the petitioner is erroneous and without any legal basis and the petitioner cannot be punished under the provisions of the Act. 

Hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the above Crime are liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein in Crime No.66 of 2013 of Banjara Hills Police Station are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

                                       

               __________________                                     

            RAJA ELANGO, J

30^th April, 2013

Nn

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

             

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4095 OF 2013

30^th April, 2013

Nn