Judgment : 1. This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by Vaddadi Rajeswari (A-4) in C.C.No.585 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam to quash the proceeding therein in so far as she is concerned. 2. Facts, in brief, are: - Daspalla Hills Guest House, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam situates within the limits of III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam city. LW-4-Manne Venkata Sarweswara Prasad is the owner of Daspalla Hills Guest House. A-1-Kottapalli Srikanth was In-charge-cum-boy of Daspalla Hills Guest House owned by LW-4-Manne Venkata Sarweswara Prasad on a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-since few months prior to the raid, i.e., 30-9-2011. A-1-Kottapalli Srikanth addicted to vices and in view of his meager earnings, he resorted to allow known persons and others to the Guest House who came with girls for sexual enjoyment, by taking additional amount of Rs.500/-from them and thereby, living on the illegal earnings. LW-7-P.V.Krishna Varma, Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam city received credible information of illegal activities in Daspalla Guest House. He appraised the Assistant Commissioner of Police, East of his receiving credible information regarding the illegal activities in Daspalla Guest House and obtained search proceedings in C.No.219/ACP-E/MC/2011 and conducted raid over the premises on 30.9.2011 at 10.30 hours with the assistance of LW-1-B.Venkateswara Rao, LW-2-V.Trinadha Rao and LW-3-K.Manga Tayaru. He found A-1-Kottapalli Srikanth, A-2-Pilla Sashank, A-3-Talluri Harsha Vardhan, A-4-VaddadiRajeswari and A-5-Kintada Anusha in illegal sexual intercourse and, therefore, he arrested them and seized cash of Rs.1500/-(Rs.500/-from A1, Rs.500/-from A-4 and Rs.500/-from A-5) and three numbers of Kamasutra excite condoms in the presence of LW-5-Bongu Krishna and LW-6-Yellanki Satya Murthy under the cover of panchanama. LW-8-K.Lakshmana Murthy, Inspector of Police, III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam city, Successor-in-office to LW-7-P.V.Krishna Murthy, laid charge sheet in the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took the case on file as C.C.No.585 of 2011. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C by A-4—Vaddadi Rajeswari to quash the proceeding therein in so far as it relates to her. 3. Earlier, A-2-Pilla Sashank and A-3-Talluri Harshavaradhan approached this Court by moving Criminal Petition No.10266 of 2011 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceeding against them. The said petition came to be allowed on 31-10-2011. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C by A-4—Vaddadi Rajeswari to quash the proceeding therein in so far as it relates to her. 3. Earlier, A-2-Pilla Sashank and A-3-Talluri Harshavaradhan approached this Court by moving Criminal Petition No.10266 of 2011 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceeding against them. The said petition came to be allowed on 31-10-2011. The relevant portion of the order passed in Criminal Petition No.10266 of 2011 needs to be noted and it is thus:- “Now the point for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioners can be proceeded for the alleged offences mentioned in the complaint? Mere perusal of the Sections 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 petitioners/A-2 and A-3 is erroneous and without any legal basis and the petitioners herein cannot be punished under the provisions of the Act. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be quashed against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in Crime No.548 of 2011 on the file of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, are hereby quashed”. The instant application has been moved by A-4-Vaddadi Rajeswari under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking the prayer stated supra. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A-4 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even as per the prosecution version, the petitioner offered her body on hire and she was not living on the earnings derived on hiring the body of others and therefore, she cannot be charged for the offence under Section 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (“the Act”, in short). In a way, his contention is that if the petitioner earns by hiring her body, it does not construe that she has been living on the earnings by doing prostitution of any other person, in which case, prosecuting the petitioner for the offence under Section 4 of the Act is wholly unsustainable. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Re Ratnamala and another AIR 1962 MADRAS 31 and the decision of Gujarat High Court in Bai Shanta v. State of Gujarat AIR1967 GUJARAT 211. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Re Ratnamala and another AIR 1962 MADRAS 31 and the decision of Gujarat High Court in Bai Shanta v. State of Gujarat AIR1967 GUJARAT 211. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petiioner/A-4 has been eking out her livelihood by hiring her body and it amounts to prostitution and therefore, she is liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. 7. The point that arises for consideration in this petition is: Whether the prosecution of the petitioner/A-4 for the offence under Section 4 of the Act can be sustained? 8. Section 4 of the Act will be attracted only if a person knowingly lives on the earnings of “prostitution” of any other person. The said Section reads as hereunder:- “4.Punishment for living on the earning of prostitution:-(1) Any person over the age of eighteen years who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of the prostitution of any other person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees , or with both [and where such earnings relate to the prostitution of a child or a minor, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and not more than ten years]. 2) Where any person over the age of eighteen years is proved- a. to be living with, or to be habitually in the company of, a prostitute or b. to have exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that such person is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution; or c. to be acting as a tout or pimp on behalf of a prostitute, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, that such person is knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution of another person within the meaning of sub-section (1). The activity carried on in a given premises will amount to “prostitution”, within the meaning of Sec.2 (f) of the Act only if sexual abuse or exploitation of a person is done for a commercial purpose. For the activity to become one with a commercial purpose, it should partake the character of a business in one carried on for profit. 9. For the activity to become one with a commercial purpose, it should partake the character of a business in one carried on for profit. 9. A plain reading of the above-referred provision clearly indicates that it is applicable only to persons(s) living on the earnings of a prostitute or trafficked victim and is not applicable to prostitute/trafficked victim herself. Section 2(f) of the Act defines prostitution as meaning sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes. The expression “prostitute” shall be construed accordingly. Section 4(1) of the Act states that any person over the age of eighteen years who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of the prostitution of any other person. Hence it is illegal for a prostitute/trafficked victim to be charged under this section. This Act does not punish or makes liable for action a woman who carries on prostitution for her own gain as long as she does not violate the prohibition of soliciting or seducing in a public place. This Section is clearly applicable only to another person. It is a section meant to punish the people living on her earnings only. Even if the version of the prosecution is accepted, the petitioner is not living on the earnings relating to prostitution of others. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 4 of the Act are not made out. In that view of the matter, continuation of proceeding against the petitioner in C.C.No.585 of 2011 amounts to abuse of process of Court. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceeding in C.C.No.585 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam against the petitioner/A-4.