Saravanan vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP No. 31849 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 31849 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012628212026}
AND CRL MP Nos.20997 & 20998 OF 2026
1. Saravanan
S/o Kannaiyan,
Karaiyaviduthi Village,
Vembanpatti Post,
Gandarvakkottai Taluk,
Pudukottai.
2. Nesakumar
S/o Chandrasekar,
No.10, Mahaveer Nagar,
Rangapuram,
Vellore.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State Rep By,
The Inspector of Police,
HUDCO Police Station,
Krishnagiri.
Crime No.217 of 2023.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the records and quash the Charge Sheet in Calander Case
No.91 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate NO.II, Hosur as against
these petitioner and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.U.Pressanna
Mr.M.Raja
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )
CRL OP No. 31849 of 2026
Order
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and
quash the charge sheet in Calender Case No.91 of 2025 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur, as against the petitioner.
2.The prosecution case is that, based on secret information regarding
prostitution activities at a spa centre, the respondent police conducted a search
on 02.07.2023 at the spa named “True Paradise”, owned by the second
petitioner/A2, situated at Hosur. At the time of the search, the petitioners and
four women working at the spa were present. The said women were cited as
witnesses in the final report. They allegedly stated that they were compelled to
engage in sexual activities with customers and that Rs.500/- was collected in
connection with such activities. Based on these allegations, the respondent
police filed a final report against the petitioners for the offences under Sections
3(2)(a), 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2 would submit that
the entire complaint is a false and concocted one and the petitioners were
arrested based on the false information received from the defacto complainant
and the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence and they have
not committed any such offence. It is his further submission that the first
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )
CRL OP No. 31849 of 2026
respondent without verifying the veracity of the complaint, registered the case
implicating the petitioners as accused and the very registration of the First
Information Report against the petitioners is not maintainable. Hence, he
submitted that no offence is made out under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c) and 5(1)
(a) of Immoral Traffic [Prevention] Act, 1956.
4.Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record.
5.The main ground raised in the present petition is that the respondent
police did not follow the mandatory requirements under Section 15 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Thus, it is relevant to rely upon the
judgment of this Court in Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini and others vs. K. Natarajan
and others, reported in 2019 (1) LW Crl. 94 , which is extracted hereunder:
6. A careful look at the provisions of Section 15 would show
that a Special Police Officer or a Trafficking Police Officer may
enter upon any premises and cause a search without warrant,
after satisfying the following:-
(i) He should have reasonable grounds for believing that an
offence punishable under this Act has been or is being
committed;
(ii) He must believe that such an offence is committed in respect
of a person living in the premises;
(iii) He should believe that the search of the premises with
warrant cannot be made without undue delay; and
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )
CRL OP No. 31849 of 2026
(iv) He must record the grounds of his belief before entering the
premises.
29.The expression "Special Police Officer" is defined in Section
2(i) of the Act, to mean a Police Officer appointed by or on
behalf of the State Government to be in charge of police duties
within a specified area for the purpose of this Act. Similarly, the
expression "Trafficking Police Officer" is defined in Section 2(j)
to mean a Police Officer appointed by the Central Government
under Section 13(4). I do not know and I have not come across
any such Trafficking Police Officer appointed by the Central
Government in terms of Section 13(4), at least in the State of
Tamil Nadu.
30. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 15, the Special Police
Officer or the Trafficking Police Officer should also call upon
two or more respectable inhabitants, at least one of whom
should be a woman of the locality in which the place to be
searched is situated, to attend and witness the search. For the
purpose of enforcing the attendance of such respectable
inhabitants, the Police Officer is obliged to issue an order in
writing to them. If the person, who is called upon to attend and
witness the search, refuses or neglects to comply with the
notice, despite an order in writing being delivered to him, he is
liable to be punished for an offence under Section 187 of the
IPC, by virtue of Sub-section (3) punishable under the Act is
committed or has been committed in respect of a person living
in any premises, (ii) to produce records to show his subjective
satisfaction that the search of the premises with warrant cannot
be made without undue delay, (iii) to produce records to show
whether two respectable inhabitants of the locality attended and
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )
CRL OP No. 31849 of 2026
witnessed the search, (iv) to show whether persons removed
from such premises were subjected to medical examination and
produced before the appropriate Magistrate immediately, and
(v) to produce proof to show that two women Police Officers
accompanied them and the interrogation of any woman was
done only by them.
34. Many times, even persons who are booked under the
provisions of this Act, do not appear to challenge the procedure
adopted. This is perhaps due to the fact that in most of the
cases, the Police find it convenient to book a person only for an
offence under Section 8, which is punishable on first conviction,
either with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore,
it appears that people choose to plead guilty and pay the fine
even on the first occasion and get off, instead of going through
the mill, by facing the prosecution and challenging the
procedure followed by the Police. The remedy is seen as worse
than the disease.
35. Therefore, the only presumption that I can draw is that as
against the writ petitioners herein, the Police did not carry out
a search by following all the steps prescribed in Section 15.
When the mandate of the law is so clear in Section 15, the
respondents cannot carry out a search de hors Section 15.
36. The conclusion that we can arrive at, on the basis of the
above discussion, is twofold. If the Police carry out a search of
the premises where the petitioners are carrying on business
activities.
If, after following all the steps prescribed in Section 15, the
petitioners cannot come under Article 226, but may have to seek
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )
CRL OP No. 31849 of 2026
redressal somewhere else. But, if the respondents are in the
habit of carrying out searches in a manner not prescribed by
Section 15, then the same actually tantamount to an unlawful
interference with the fundamental right of the petitioners to
carry on any business or profession which is not declared as
unlawful by any legislation.
6.In the present case also, the inspection was not carried out by the
Special Police Officer or the Trafficking Police Officer and the Officer who
carried out the inspection was not an authorized officer under Section 15 of the
Act. Therefore, if the search and inspection is not carried out by following the
procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act, the entire proceeding
becomes illegal and cannot be sustained in law.
7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the
proceedings in C.C. No.91 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Hosur, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AH
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )
CRL OP No. 31849 of 2026
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Hosur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
HUDCO Police Station,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )
CRL OP No. 31849 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
AH
CRL OP No. 31849 of 2026
AND
CRL MP Nos.20997 & 20998 OF 2026
03-11-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )