VINEETH TULSIAN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Vineeth Tulsian, a businessman is A.5 among 5 accused is seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.498 of 2018 of Pet Basheerbad Police Station registered based on panchanama of the raid conducted on 31.07.2018 night by the complainant-Inspector of Police along with staff, for the offences punishable u/sec.370IPC and Sections 3 to 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) The sum and substance of the accusation in panchanama and remand report dt.01.08.2018 of the A.2 to A.5 by showing the A.1 in abscondence by referring 12 witnesses including L.Ws. 1 and 2-panch witnesses to the seizure with disclosure by the accused persons, the L.Ws. 3 to-6 victim ladies (majors), the L.Ws. 7 to 11 are the Police Constables, Head Constable and other Inspector who assisted to the L.W.12- Investigating Officer who conducted raid, registered the crime and investigated and filed charge sheet is that on 31.07.2018 at about 7.00 P.M., the complainant-Investigating Officer received credible information of business of prostitution is going at M/s. ASP WELLNESS SAPTA SPA, H.No.3- 10/3, Sharma Lane, Kompally under the guise of massage/spa and secured 2 panch witnesses- LWs.1 and 2 and along with his staff went to said premises and noticed A.2-Anudeep was present at the reception and the complainant informed him of the object of their raiding and asked to co-operate for search. The A.2 made disclosure of him working as receptionist in the massage centre run by A.1-Adithya with his assistance the prostitution business under its cover by bringing sex workers from the villages and calling customers for the past few days. The A.3 to A.5 referred as customers visited the Centre to have sexual joy by paying money of Rs.2,500/- each and they selected L.Ws. 4 to 6 to have sexual joy and they were about to move for the sexual act, they caught hold of them redhanded and the sex workers L.Ws. 3 to 6 also corroborated the version from their statements and thereby the amount of Rs.14,000/-, three cell phones viz: ASUS, SAMSUNG WHITE COLOUR, SAMSUNG DUOS from A.2; Rs.4,000/- cash from L.W.3-sex worker; Rs.4,500/- cash and SAMSUNG phone from another sex worker-L.W.4; Rs.3,500/-; a NOKIA cell phone from another sex worker- L.W.5; Rs.4,000/- cash and a NOKIA phone from another sex worker-L.W.6; one I-phone from Praveen Kumar-A.4; Samsung Sky blue colour phone from A.3-P.V.Janardhan Reddy; one more I-phone from A.5-Vineeth Tulsian-the petitioner and 2 Kohinoor condom packets, from reception, used condoms-6 from the dust bins were seized under the cover of panchanama, from recording statements of victims and proceeded to police station and registered the crime for the offences supra and arrested the accused and submitted to judicial custody and the investigation revealed that the A.1 in abscondence is the main person running prostitution business under the guise of SPA Centre with the services of A.2 to which the A.3 to A.5 customers as referred supra. The A.5-petitoner herein obtained regular bail on 17.08.2018 from Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberanad in Crl.M.P.No.3322 of 2018 where it is observed that it is not the allegation of A.5 is running brothel house or procuring women for prostitution and living by their earnings but he is one of the customers found in the raids and Sections 3 to 5 of the Act have no application against him. In Arjun rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.M.P.No.1786 of 2013 and batch, dt.22.05.2013, this Court another Bench observed that among Sections 3 to 7 of the Act, Section 3 deals with the punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel; Section 4 deals with punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution; Section 5 deals with procuring, inducing or taking a person for sake of prostitution. The prostitution is defined in Section 2(f) of the Act to mean sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes, and the expression 'prostitute' shall be construed accordingly. It was a case where sex workers are made as accused were acquitted as victims and not be shown as accused for punishment.

(3.) The contentions in the quash petition by referring to the above among others that none of the offences even on face value applicable against the petitioner-A.5 to sustain the crime proceedings, leave about the person who conducted the raid and investigated the case after registration of the crime is one and the same no way sustainable.