Karnataka HC quashes ITP Act case, citing absence of an authorised Special Police Officer and a woman in the raid party

Acting on information that prostitution was taking place at Venkateshwara Lodge in Athani, a Police Sub-Inspector obtained prior permission from the Deputy Superintendent of Police and conducted a raid with police staff and panchas.

The police registered Crime No. 506/2026 against the petitioners for offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (“ITP Act”).

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, contending that the raid and investigation were not conducted by a duly appointed Special Police Officer and that the mandatory safeguards under Section 15(2) of the ITP Act had not been followed.

Whether the raid, registration of the case and investigation were sustainable when the officer conducting them had not been shown to be appointed as a Special Police Officer under the ITP Act.

Whether non-compliance with the safeguards under Section 15(2) of the ITP Act—including the absence of a woman during the raid—vitiated the proceedings.

Section 2(i) of the ITP Act defines a Special Police Officer, while Section 13 provides for the appointment of such an officer by or on behalf of the State Government for a specified area and requires that officer to be of at least the rank of Inspector of Police.

Section 15(2) prescribes safeguards for searches under the Act, including the participation of a woman witness from the locality, which the Court treated as mandatory.

The Court relied on Dharmanna v. State of Karnataka, Shri Rajath v. State of Karnataka and Mr. Praveen Kumar M.S. v. State of Karnataka for the propositions that action under the Act must be undertaken by an appropriately appointed Special Police Officer and that non-compliance with Section 15(2) may vitiate the proceedings.

The Court found no notification or other material establishing that the Police Sub-Inspector who conducted the raid—or the relevant police officers—had been appointed as Special Police Officers under the Act. It therefore concluded that the raid and resulting proceedings lacked the required statutory authority.

The Court also noted that no woman had accompanied the raiding party and that the mahazar did not record that a woman or a person from the locality was unavailable; it treated the resulting non-compliance with the mandatory search safeguard as an additional ground against continuation of the prosecution.

Although the judgment’s discussion identifies Section 15(2) as the relevant provision, its final discussion refers to “Section 12(2)”.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.