ORDER : Y. LAKSHMANARAO, J. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the BNSS challenging the order dated 14.05.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.75/2023 in S.C.No.84/2022 passed by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam , the Trial Court in refusing to discharge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 from the case registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 370A(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the I.P.C., and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the I.T.P.Act 2. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.75 of 2023 before the learned Trial Court seeking his discharge from the case. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 14.05.2024 dismissed the discharge petition under Section 239 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the discharge petition the Petitioner/Accused No.2 approached this Court. 3. Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the grounds of Revision argued that the Petitioner would not come under the preview of the Section 370A (2) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as he would not fit into the definition of the customer. He relied on the decision of this Court in Vasanthavada Raghubabu v. State of A.P., Crl.P.No.8675 of 2022 dated 31.10.2025 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Chowdary v. State of A.P., Crl.P.No.6634 of 2022 dated 26.08.2022 In the facts and circumstances of that case, it was held that the Petitioner therein would not come under the definition of customer as per Section 370A(2) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as there was no sexual exploitation at all and the L.W.9/victim in that case had voluntarily selected prostitution due to her financial problem and she wanted to live on such earnings. Hence that matter was quashed. 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the Revision Case and supported the order of the learned ‘Trial Court’, contending that the discharge petition was rightly dismissed and further argued that the presence of the Petitioner at the premises and the payment of money to the victim and the intermediary (pimp) are sufficient grounds to frame charges and proceed to trial. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor maintained that these facts, taken together, raise a prima facie case warranting further adjudication. 6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor maintained that these facts, taken together, raise a prima facie case warranting further adjudication. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement of the victim, L.W.5, though indicative of voluntary prostitution, does not absolve the Petitioner from scrutiny under Section 370A(2) of ‘the I.P.C.’ The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor emphasized that the determination of whether the Petitioner had knowledge or reason to believe that the victim was trafficked is a matter of trial and cannot be conclusively decided at the stage of discharge. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the Petitioner’s conduct in engaging the victim through a pimp and making payment for sexual services raises sufficient suspicion to justify the framing of charges. With respect to the offences under ‘the I.T.P.Act’, the Petitioner’s actions may potentially fall within the scope of Section 5 of ‘the I.T.P.Act,’ which deals with procuring or inducing a person for prostitution. He asserted that the factual matrix, including the coordination with the intermediary and the financial transaction, merits a full- fledged trial to ascertain the culpability of the Petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, the Petitioner cannot be discharged, and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the order in Crl.M.P.No.75/2023 in S.C.No.84/2022 dated 14.05.2024 passed by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, and there are any material irregularities?And to what relief?” 9. In Putti Kalyan Shouri v. State of A.P., Crl.P.No.4771 of 2022 dated 16.09.2022 a learned Single Judge of this Court had also quashed the proceedings in similar facts and circumstances of the case, as the victim voluntarily selected prostitution due to her financial problems. 10. In the instant case also L.W.5, who is the victim stated before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ that the money which she was earning by conducting some marriage events was not sufficient for her family expenses. She was doing prostitution and earning money. Nowhere she stated that she was exploited by any of the accused. 10. In the instant case also L.W.5, who is the victim stated before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ that the money which she was earning by conducting some marriage events was not sufficient for her family expenses. She was doing prostitution and earning money. Nowhere she stated that she was exploited by any of the accused. She further stated that she came in acquaintance with one Divya through her friend; L.W.5 informed Divya that she was in need of money as her family’s financial position was not good. L.W.5 further revealed that on 15.03.2020 at 05.00 p.m., Divya had telephoned her, and she came to Divya’s house at 05.30 p.m. Later Divya had telephoned to a customer who came at 06.00 p.m. L.W.5 doesn’t know his name, and Divya collected Rs.2,600/- from the customer(Petitioner) and gave L.W.5 Rs.1,300/-. L.W.5 further stated that she knew customer(Petitioner) is a Navy employee. In the entire statement of L.W.5 there is no reference that she was trafficked or compelled to indulge in flesh trade. 11. A learned Division Bench of this Court in Vasanthavada Raghubabu supra at paragraph Nos.34 & 35 held as under: “34. Therefore, in the considered view of this court, specific facts and circumstances shall be looked into while determining fastening of liability under Section 370A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.As held supra, a Customer is liable to be prosecuted under Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, in the event the facts prima facie disclose that a customer is knowingly or having reason to believe that a person has been trafficked and having such knowledge or reason to believe, engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner. Unless those ingredients are met, a Customer cannot be prosecuted under Section 370Aof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, we are of theview that thereexistsnoconflict. 35. Therefore, at the cost of repetition, a Customer is liable to be prosecuted under Section 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, in the event the facts prima facie disclose that a customer is knowingly or having reason to believe that a person/minor has been trafficked and having such knowledge or reason to believe, engages such minor or person for sexual exploitation in any manner. However, it is needless to state that, in the event, a customer merely visits the said premises or mere presence of such customer at the spot during any raid which indicates that they were customers who had gone to said spot, and without meeting the essential ingredients under Sections 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, does not attract criminal liability under Section 370A of the PenalCode, 1860.” In the above order, it was observed that Section 370A(2) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ if a customer knowingly or having reason to believe that a person had been trafficked or having such knowledge or reason to believe engage such person for sexual exploitation in any manner Section 370A(2) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ would attract. It was further held that unless the ingredients are met a customer cannot be prosecuted under Section 370A(2) of ‘the I.P.C.’ 12. In the instant case also, there is no reference in the statement of L.W.5 that she was trafficked, or she was compelled to do prostitution. There is no reference in the statement of L.W.5 further that Petitioner/Accused No.2 had reason to believe that L.W.5 was trafficked or engaged for sexual exploitation in any manner. Petitioner is working as Sailor in Navy in Utter Pradesh. He is aged about 23 years. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is not liable for prosecution for the charge under Section 370A(2) of ‘the I.P.C.’ Section 3 of ‘the I.T.P.Act’, pertains for Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Section 3 of ‘the I.T.P.Act’ would not attract against the Petitioner. Section 4 of ‘the I.T.P.Act’ deals with punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. There is no allegation that the Petitioner had lived on the earnings of the prostitution. In fact, he gave some amount to L.W.5 and also a pimp. Section 5 of ‘the I.T.P.Act’ provides for Procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution. Even Section 5 of ‘the I.T.P.Act’ would not applicable against the Petitioner. 14. Therefore, there is no basis to frame charges against the Petitioner either under the provisions of 370A (2) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ or under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of ‘the I.T.P.Act’. Even Section 5 of ‘the I.T.P.Act’ would not applicable against the Petitioner. 14. Therefore, there is no basis to frame charges against the Petitioner either under the provisions of 370A (2) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ or under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of ‘the I.T.P.Act’. The order of the learned Trial Court dismissing the discharge petition was on the ground that there was no reference in the chargesheet that the Petitioner visited the brothel as a customer only. Further, on perusal of the statement of L.W.5, it is clear that the Petitioner went to brothel as a customer, and he had paid some amount as mentioned supra. Therefore, the reason assigned by the learned Trial Court for dismissing the discharge petition is not correct. 15. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Korada Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P., Crl.P.No.6182 of 2022 dated 11.08.2022 in the similar facts and circumstances of the case quashed the proceedings. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the learned ‘Trial Court’ is set aside on the ground that the essential ingredients for prosecution under Section 370A(2) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ were not satisfied. The victim’s statement clearly indicated that she voluntarily engaged in prostitution due to financial hardship, without any coercion or trafficking. There was no material to suggest that the Petitioner/Accused No.2 had knowledge or reason to believe that the victim was trafficked, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 370A(2) of ‘the I.P.C.’ Judicial precedents, including Vasanthavada Raghubabu supra reinforces that mere presence at the premises or payment for sexual services does not attract criminal liability under this provision unless such knowledge is established. 17. Furthermore, this Court finds no basis to proceed against the Petitioner under Sections 3, 4, or 5 of ‘the I.T.P.Act’. The Petitioner neither managed a brothel, nor lived off the earnings of prostitution, nor procured or induced the victim. The financial transaction described was limited and did not reflect any exploitative or recurring conduct. The learned Trial Court’s reasoning that the Petitioner’s visit as a customer justified framing charges is held to be legally flawed and inconsistent with settled principles of law. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned is not sustainable, liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The learned Trial Court’s reasoning that the Petitioner’s visit as a customer justified framing charges is held to be legally flawed and inconsistent with settled principles of law. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned is not sustainable, liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The Petitioner is discharged under Section 239 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ from S.C.No.84/2022 on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-VIIAdditional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 19. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.