Rahul Surana vs State Of Telangana And Another

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.278 of 2021 on the file of Jubilee Hills Police Station,

Hyderabad. The petitioner is accused No.6 in the said crime. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 370, 370(A)(2) of IPC and Sections

3, 4 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956(for short ‘PIT Act’)

Heard Sri D.Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for 2nd respondent and perused the

record.

In the complaint as well as in the remand report, the only allegation against the petitioner/A6 is that he went to Dolphin Hotel, paid an amount of

Rs.4,500/- and exploited the victim sexually. Thus, as per the contents of the FIR, petitioner/A6 is only a customer.

In Mohammad Riyaz v. State of Telangana Criminal Petition No.5803 of 2018, decided on 27.06.2018 it was held that proceedings under Sections 3,

4 & 5 of the PIT Act and Section 370 of IPC against a customer are not maintainable.

Section 370 of IPC deals with trafficking of a person and as per it, whoever, for the purpose of exploitation (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours,

(d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons using threats or force, etc., is punishable.

A perusal of the complaint as well as the remand report lacks the ingredients of Section 370 IPC.

Section 370(A)(2) of IPC deals with exploitation of a trafficked person. As per it, whoever, knowingly by or having reason to believe that a person

has been trafficked, engages such person 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.

As discussed above, the only allegation against the petitioner/A6 is that he has information from A1 and A4 with regard to availability of victims for

the purpose of exploitation sexually, he went to Dolphin Hotel, paid an amount of Rs.4,500/- and exploited the victim sexually. Thus, he is a customer.

In view of the above, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the contents of the complaint as well as the remand report constitute the offence

under Section 370(A)(2) of IPC, and as discussed above, the offences under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section

370 of IPC are liable to be quashed.

Therefore, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/A6 in Crime No.278 of 2021 on the file of Jubilee

Hills Police Station, Hyderabad insofar as the offences under Sections 370 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956

are concerned. This Criminal Petition is dismissed insofar as the offence alleged against the petitioner/A6 under Section 370(A)(2) of IPC. The

Investigating Officer in the above Crime is at liberty to conduct the investigation, except for the offences quashed against the petitioner/A6 as above,

and file final report.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.