Johnpal vs State rep by The Inspector of Police

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP No. 31184 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 31184 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012575192026}
and
CRL MP Nos. 20701 and 20702 of 2026
1. Johnpal
S/o Anthonisamy,
Door No.294, Police Quarters,
Peelamedu,
Ganapathi,
Coimbatore District.
2. Vijayalakshmi
W/o Devaraj,
D.No.171, V.G.Rao Nagar,
Ganapatthy,
Coimbatore North,
Coimbatore District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State rep by, The Inspector of Police
Peelamedu Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
Crime No.778 of 2024.
2. Suresh
S/o. Azhagu,
D.No.260, Arinianapatti,
Kudumiyanpatti Post,
Ponnamaravathi Taluk,
Puduckkottai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying
to call for records relating to the C.C.No.1376 of 2025 on the file of the Learned
Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court,Coimbatore, and quash the same.
__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:15 pm )

CRL OP No. 31184 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Arun Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
ORDER
This Criminal original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.1376 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional
Mahila Court,Coimbatore, for the alleged offences under sections 3(2) (a), 4(2)
(c) and 5(1) (d) of Immoral Traffic [Prevention] Act 1956.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.12.2024, the de-facto
complainant/second respondent, namely, Suresh, S/o.Azhagu has lodged a
complaint before the first respondent alleging that when he was standing at the
second bus stop, Cheranma Nagar, Coimbatore, the first petitioner/A1
introduced himself and stated that he had women for prostitution and invited
him. The de-facto complainant accepted the invitation and entered the place of
occurrence, where he saw A3 to A6 attempting to solicit him. Immediately
thereafter, the de-facto complainant left the place and lodged the complaint.
Pursuant thereto, a case has been registered in Crime No.778 of 2024 for the
offences punishable under sections 3(2) (a), 4(2) (c) and 5(1) (d) of Immoral
Traffic [Prevention] Act 1956.
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:15 pm )

CRL OP No. 31184 of 2026
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 & 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 de-facto 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
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)
(d) 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, are extracted hereunder:~
28. A careful look at the provisions of Section 15 would
show that a Special Police Officer or a Trafficking Police Officer
can enter upon any premises and cause a search without warrant,
only after satisfying the following:-
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:15 pm )

CRL OP No. 31184 of 2026
(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
(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 situate,
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)
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:15 pm )

CRL OP No. 31184 of 2026
of Section 15. An immunity is granted under Sub~section (6)
of Section 15 to persons taking part in or attending and witnessing
a search, from any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of
anything lawfully done in connection with the search.
31. The Special Police Officer or the Trafficking Police Officer,
who makes a search, should be accompanied by at least two
women Police Officers. If any woman or girl is removed under
Sub~section (4) from the premises of search, she could be
interrogated only by the woman Police Officer.
32. Day in and day out, newspapers compete with each other in
publishing reports along with photographs of girls, whenever any
search is carried out under Section 15 of the Act and any woman
is removed from a place. The website of the National Crime
Records Bureau shows that a total of about 2,44,270 incidents of
crime against women were reported in the whole country during
the year 2012. Out of them, about 2563 constitute cases under
the  Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Interestingly, 19.5%
of such cases (about 500 cases out of those 2563 cases) were
reported only in Tamil Nadu. This can be taken either as an
indication that incidents of crime under the said Act is on the
increase in Tamil Nadu or as an indication of the role played by
the Police in the State of Tamil Nadu in taking the crimes under
this Act more seriously than what their counterparts in the other
States do.
33. Unfortunately, no accountability is fixed on the police to see
whether all the requirements of Section 15   are complied with or
not. No one calls upon the Special Police Officer or the
Trafficking Police Officer (i) to produce records to show whether
he has minuted the grounds of his belief that an offence
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:15 pm )

CRL OP No. 31184 of 2026
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 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
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:15 pm )

CRL OP No. 31184 of 2026
premises where the petitioners are carrying on business activities,
after following all the steps prescribed in Section 15, the
petitioners cannot come under Article 226, but may have to seek
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.1376 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, is hereby quashed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Uma
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:15 pm )

CRL OP No. 31184 of 2026
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court,Coimbatore
2. The Inspector of Police
Peelamedu Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
Crime No.778 of 2024.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:15 pm )

CRL OP No. 31184 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
Uma
CRL OP No. 31184 of 2026
and
CRL MP Nos.20701 and 20702 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:15 pm )