Madras HC Quashes Immoral Traffic Act Case Against Two After Salon Inspection By Officer Not Authorised Under Section 15

The second respondent alleged that, on 6 January 2025, at a salon and spa in Coimbatore, the second petitioner offered women for prostitution and other persons attempted to seduce him. Police registered Crime No. 4 of 2025 under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c) and 6(1)(b) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (“the Act”), and the charge sheet was taken on file as C.C. No. 5332 of 2025

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, principally alleging non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 15 of the Act

Section 15 of the Act governs searches undertaken by a Special Police Officer or Trafficking Police Officer.

Relying on *Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini v. K. Natarajan*, 2019 (1) LW (Crl) 94, the Court noted that a warrantless search requires reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under the Act has been or is being committed in respect of a person living at the premises, a belief that obtaining a warrant would cause undue delay, and prior recording of the grounds for that belief. The section also prescribes safeguards concerning independent witnesses and women police officers

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

Applying the statutory requirements and the reasoning in *Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini*, the Court held that proceedings based on an inspection not conducted in accordance with Section 15 could not be sustained in law

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed