Hosur Spa Case: Madras HC Quashes Two Men’s Prosecution After Search By Officer Not Authorized Under Immoral Traffic Act

In brief

The question

1. Whether the search and inspection were conducted by an officer authorised under Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and in compliance with its prescribed procedure.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 91 of 2025 against the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Hosur.

It also directed

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

01Facts

Police searched the “True Paradise” spa in Hosur on 2 July 2023, following information about alleged prostitution.

The two petitioners and four women were present; the women were cited as witnesses and allegedly stated that they had been compelled to engage in sexual activities for payment.

Police filed a final report against the petitioners under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and the case was pending as C.C. No. 91 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Hosur.

p. 2

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, principally arguing that the police had not complied with the mandatory search procedure under Section 15 of the Act.

p. 3, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the search and inspection were conducted by an officer authorised under Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and in compliance with its prescribed procedure.

pp. 5–6

ii.2. Whether non-compliance with Section 15 rendered the prosecution proceedings liable to be quashed.

p. 6

03Law Applied

Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, permits a Special Police Officer or Trafficking Police Officer to conduct a warrantless search only upon satisfying the statutory conditions, including reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under the Act has been or is being committed in respect of a person living on the premises, grounds to believe that obtaining a warrant would cause undue delay, and recording the grounds of belief before entry.

pp. 3–5

Section 15 also prescribes safeguards concerning independent witnesses and the conduct of the search.

pp. 3–5

The Court relied on Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini v. K. Natarajan, 2019 (1) LW (Crl.) 94, which emphasised that searches under the Act must comply with Section 15 and cannot be conducted de hors its requirements.

pp. 3–6

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 8 Section 13 Section 15

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 187

04Reasoning

The Court found that the inspection was not conducted by a Special Police Officer or a Trafficking Police Officer, and that the officer who conducted it was not authorised under Section 15.

p. 6

Applying the statutory safeguards and the reasoning in Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini, the Court held that a search not conducted in accordance with Section 15 was illegal and that the resulting proceedings could not be sustained.

pp. 5–6

05Holding

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 91 of 2025 against the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Hosur.

p. 6

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

p. 6

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF