Madras HC Quashes Immoral Traffic Act FIR Over Alleged Massage Services, Citing Inspection By Officer Not Authorised Under Section 15

In brief

The question

Whether the inspection and search leading to the registration of the FIR complied with the requirements of Section 15 of the Act.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 425 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent.

It also directed

The connected criminal miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The second respondent alleged that, after responding to an online advertisement for massage and other services, he visited the petitioners’ premises, where they allegedly offered those services for Rs. 2,000.

p. 2

He left and lodged a complaint, following which the police registered Crime No. 425 of 2025 against the petitioners under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (“the Act”).

p. 2

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, contending, among other grounds, that the police had not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 15 of the Act.

pp. 2–3, 7

02Issues

i.Whether the inspection and search leading to the registration of the FIR complied with the requirements of Section 15 of the Act.

pp. 3–7

ii.Whether the FIR in Crime No. 425 of 2025 should be quashed for non-compliance with Section 15 of the Act.

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

Section 15 of the Act governs searches without warrant by a Special Police Officer or Trafficking Police Officer.

pp. 3–6

As explained in Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini and Others v. K. Natarajan and Others, 2019 (1) LW Crl 94, such an officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under the Act has been or is being committed in respect of a person living in the premises, believe that obtaining a warrant would cause undue delay, and record the grounds of that belief before entering.

pp. 3–6

Section 15 also prescribes safeguards for the search, including the presence of respectable local witnesses and at least two women police officers.

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 in this case 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 safeguards identified in Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini, the Court held that a search not conducted in accordance with Section 15 was unlawful and that the resulting proceedings could not be sustained.

pp. 5–6