Jothish vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP No. 31303 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 31303 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012533392026}
and
CRL MP No. 20776 of 2026
Jothish
S/o Jothibasu,
Ambikabavan,
Suranadu North,
Kollam,
Kerala.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police
B2-Vishnu Kanchi Police Station,
Kancheepuram.
Crime No.1109 of 2023
2. Sudhakar
The Sub Inspector of Police,
B2-Vishnu Kanchi Police Station,
Little Kancheepuram.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying
to call for the records in Charge Sheet in CC.No.868 of 2025 pending on the file
of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Kancheepuram and quash the same
as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Jaikumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )
CRL OP No. 31303 of 2026
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.868 of
2025 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court-I,
Kancheepuram, thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under
Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a), 6(1)(a) and 7(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant SI
Sudhakar of B-2 Vishnukanchi Police Station lodged a special report alleging
that A1, Ravin @ Karthick, S/o.Rajakumar was running an establishment under
the name and style of “Rakshara Ayurvda Therapy” at Aladi Pillaiar Koil Street,
Chinna Kancheepuram and he had procured two women, namely, Bharathi(42),
W/o.Balu and Preetha,(22) D/o.Govintharaj by promising them higher
remuneration. It is further alleged that the employees, A2 Jothish and A3
Balaji, had engaged the said women in prostitution and collected amounts
ranging from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/-. On 22.10.2023 at about 1.30 hours, they
allegedly solicited the decoy customer, SI Sudhakar for Rs.2,500/- for sexual
service at the said premises. Based on the special report lodged by the de-facto
complainant, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.1109 of 2023
for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a), 6(1)(a) and
7(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. After completion of the
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )
CRL OP No. 31303 of 2026
investigation, the first respondent filed the final report and the same has been
taken cognizance by the trial Court.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
4. On perusal of the impugned final report and the statements of the
witnesses, it is revealed that there are specific allegations against the petitioner,
which are sufficient to attract the offence under Sections Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1),
5(1)(a), 6(1)(a) and 7(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The
veracity of the allegations can be determined only at the stage of trial, upon the
appreciation of evidence. The grounds raised by the petitioner involve disputed
questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019
(4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.,
(Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to
quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no
jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that
there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima
facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )
CRL OP No. 31303 of 2026
Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court
while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has
been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
6.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019 ) reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686, held that the High Courts cannot
record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be
tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore,
this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated
02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs.
K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment
of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into
the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to
whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the
ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court
can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have
been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )
CRL OP No. 31303 of 2026
complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged.
Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to
law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.
8.Further, this Court cannot observe at this stage as to whether the
initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is required
to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by
the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained.
9.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in C.C No.868 of 2025 on the file of the learned Learned Judicial
Magistrate Court-I, Kancheepuram The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the
grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Uma
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )
CRL OP No. 31303 of 2026
To
1. The learned Learned Judicial Magistrate Court-
I, Kancheepuram
2. The Inspector of Police
B2-Vishnu Kanchi Police Station,
Kancheepuram.
Crime No.1109 of 2023
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )
CRL OP No. 31303 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
Uma
CRL OP No. 31303 of 2026
and
CRL MP No. 20776 of 2026
29-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:14:05 pm )