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

CRL OP No. 32518 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.32518 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012683902026}
AND
CRL.M.P.No.21376 of 2026
1. Bhavana
D/o.Pandiyan,
No.217, Osmin Nagar,
Avinashilingam Post,
Coimbatore North, Coimbatore District.
2. Manivannan
S/o Muthuraj,
No.5/3, Anganan Street,
Narasimhanaicken Palayam,
Coimbatore District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police
Perur Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
Crime No.425 of 2025.
2. Kaviarasan
S/o Malaisamy,
D.No.213(2), Anyavayal,
Marakkathur, Sivagangai District.
Now Residing at,
No.268/B, Guhan Mills,
Madampatty, Coimbatore District.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 32518 of 2026
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to the FIR in
Crime No.425 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Vignesh
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This criminal original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime
No.425 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the second respondent/ de facto
complainant came across an online advertisement offering massage and other
services through a website and when he went to that place and enquired, the
petitioners stated that massage as well as other services will be offered and
demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- and therefore, the complainant left the
petitioners' place and lodged the complaint against the petitioners. Pursuant
thereto, a case has been registered in Crime No.425 of 2025 for the offences
under sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c) and 5(1) (d) of the Immoral Traffic [Prevention]
Act, 1956 (for brevity "the Act").
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 32518 of 2026
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the
entire complaint is a false and concocted one and the petitioner was arrested
based on the false information received from the de facto complainant and the
petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offences 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. He, hence, submitted that no
offence is made out under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Act.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials 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:—
(i) he should have reasonable grounds for believing
that an offence punishable under this Act has been or
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 32518 of 2026
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,
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 32518 of 2026
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 Subsection (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.
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 32518 of 2026
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 and challenging the procedure followed
by the Police. The remedy is seen as worse than the disease.
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 32518 of 2026
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."
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.
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 32518 of 2026
7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands allowed and the
First Information Report registered in Crime No.425 of 2025 on the file of the
first respondent is hereby quashed. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsd
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 32518 of 2026
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Perur Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )

CRL OP No. 32518 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
nsd
CRL OP No. 32518 of 2026
04-11-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:55 pm )