Madras HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Therapy-Centre Employee Accused Of Engaging Women In Prostitution, Directs Trial To Finish In Six Months

The prosecution alleged that the first accused operated “Rakshara Ayurvda Therapy” and procured two women for prostitution, while the petitioner, named as A2, and another employee engaged them in prostitution and collected money. It further alleged that, on 22 October 2023, they solicited a decoy customer for sexual services at the premises.

Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed and taken cognizance as C.C. No. 868 of 2025 for offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a), 6(1)(a), and 7(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to consider a request to quash criminal proceedings. At that stage, the Court should not assess the credibility or consistency of witness statements or resolve disputed facts; those matters are ordinarily for the trial court.

The Court referred to Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2019 (4) SCC 351; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna, 2019 (10) SCC 686; and M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr., Crl.A. No. 1817 of 2019, for the principles that a quashing court should not undertake an evidentiary inquiry, and should consider whether the allegations, taken at face value, constitute the alleged offences and whether the prerequisites for cognizance were met.

The alleged offences were under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a), 6(1)(a), and 7(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The Court found that the final report and witness statements contained specific allegations against the petitioner which, if accepted at this stage, were sufficient to attract the charged provisions.

It held that the petitioner’s grounds raised disputed factual matters and that assessing their truth, or determining whether the prosecution evidence would ultimately prove the allegations, would require trial-stage appreciation of evidence.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court declined to resolve those matters in the quashing proceeding and left the petitioner free to raise his grounds before the trial court.

It granted the petitioner liberty to raise all grounds before the trial court and directed that the trial be completed within six months of receipt of a copy of the order.