Madras HC Quashes ITPA Case Against Two Women After Finding Spa Inspection Was Not By An Authorised Officer Under Section 15

The second respondent complained that, on 23 November 2023, A2 took him to Grand Beauty Spa, introduced him to the petitioners, and directed them to take him to a woman named Radha, whom he said was attempting to seduce him.

A case was registered in Crime No. 361 of 2023 under Sections 4(2)(c), 5(1)(d) and 3(2)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The petitioners, described as A3 and A4, sought to quash the resulting proceedings in C.C. No. 5000 of 2025, contending, among other things, that the police had not complied with Section 15 of the Act.

Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, governs searches without warrant and prescribes the authority and procedure for conducting them.

The Court relied on Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini and others v. K. Natarajan and others, 2019 (1) LW Crl 94, which discusses the requirements of Section 15, including reasonable grounds for the search, recording the grounds of belief before entry, calling respectable local inhabitants to witness the search, and the involvement of women police officers in the circumstances specified by the provision.

The Court treated a search or inspection not conducted by a Special Police Officer or Trafficking Police Officer in accordance with Section 15 as unlawful and the resulting proceedings as unsustainable.

The Court found that the inspection in this case had not been 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 principles in Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini, the Court concluded that the inspection did not comply with the procedure prescribed by the Act and that the resulting proceedings could not be sustained.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.