Ashma vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP No. 29811 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 29811 of 2026
and Crl.M.P.Nos.19842 & 19841 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012489372026}
1. Ashma
W/o Abusalik,
No.6/104, Muslim Street,
Velliyampalayam, Iraiyampalayam,
Thiruchengode, Namakkal District.
2. Vembu
W/o Setu,
D.no.918, Colony Street,
Sripuranthan, Udayarpalayam,
Ariyalur District.
3. Abitha
W/o Manoharan,
D.No.14, Nehru Nagar West,
7th Street, Kalapatti Main Road,
Coimbatore District.
4. Selvi
W/o Gowsikraja,
D.No.2/3, Rajammal Layout,
Kumar Nagar, Tiruppur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The 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, Arinjanapatti,
Kudumiyanpatti Post,
Ponnamaravathi Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:45 pm )

CRL OP No. 29811 of 2026
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to call for records relating to
the CC.No.1376 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore and quash the same and thus render
justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Arun Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1376 of
2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,Additional Mahila Court,Coimbatore.
2. Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, based on a complaint lodged by the
defacto complainant/second respondent, the first respondent police registered an
FIR in crime No.778 of 2024. It is alleged that while the second respondent was
standing at the bus stop, A1 introduced himself and stated that they had women
available for prostitution, thereby inviting him. The second respondent accepted
the invitation, entered the place of occurrence, and saw all the accused persons.
They tried to seduce the defacto complainant, who immediately left the place of
occurrence.
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:45 pm )

CRL OP No. 29811 of 2026
4. According to the petitioners, who are arrayed as A3 to A6, they are sex
workers. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even according
to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners were neither running a brothel nor
living on the earnings of prostitution. It is contended that under the scheme of
the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, they are victims and not offenders, even
if they were allegedly found on the premises removing their clothes and
hugging the complainant.
5. Even assuming that they were running a brothel or living on the
earnings of the prostitution of others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in
the case of Budhadev Karmaskar Vs. State of West Bengal and others (2022
LiveLaw (SC) 525) , upheld that voluntary sex work is not illegal and only
running a brothel is unlawful. The Apex Court directed the police to act
according to the guidelines, which mandate that whenever there is a raid on any
brothel, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested, penalised, harassed,
or victimised.
6. Furthermore, the first respondent failed to follow the mandatory
requirements contemplated under Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956. The inspection was not carried out by the Special Police
Officer or the Trafficking Police Officer. Additionally, the first respondent was
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:45 pm )

CRL OP No. 29811 of 2026
not an authorised officer as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act.
7. In this regard it is relavant to rely upon the judgement 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:—
(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.
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:45 pm )

CRL OP No. 29811 of 2026
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) 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
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:45 pm )

CRL OP No. 29811 of 2026
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 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
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:45 pm )

CRL OP No. 29811 of 2026
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,
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.
8 . The above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. Since the search and inspection was not
carried out by following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 15
of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the entire criminal proceedings
becomes illegal and cannot be sustainable in law.
9. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
the proceedings in C.C.No.1376 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:45 pm )

CRL OP No. 29811 of 2026
Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, is hereby quashed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MPA
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore.
2. The Inspector of Police
Peelamedu Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:45 pm )

CRL OP No. 29811 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
MPA
CRL OP No. 29811 of 2026
and Crl.M.P.Nos.19842 & 19841 of 2026
13-10-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:02:45 pm )