Prosecution against four women in prostitution case quashed over failure to follow mandatory search safeguards

The second respondent complained that A1 approached him at a bus stop, said women were available for prostitution, and invited him to a premises. He entered, saw the accused, and alleged that they tried to seduce him, after which he left.

Petitioners A3 to A6 sought to quash the resulting proceedings in C.C. No. 1376 of 2025, contending that they were sex workers and that the police had not complied with the search requirements under Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (“ITPA”).

1. Whether the prosecution against petitioners A3 to A6 could be sustained where the alleged search and inspection did not comply with the mandatory procedure in Section 15 of the ITPA.

2. Whether the proceedings in C.C. No. 1376 of 2025 should be quashed in the exercise of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Section 15 of the ITPA permits a warrantless search by a Special Police Officer or Trafficking Police Officer only subject to statutory safeguards, including reasonable grounds for believing an offence under the Act has been or is being committed, recording the grounds for the search, calling independent local witnesses—including at least one woman—and ensuring the required women police officers accompany the search.

The Court relied on *Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini v. K. Natarajan*, 2019 (1) LW Crl 94, which emphasised compliance with those safeguards and held that a search conducted otherwise is unlawful.

It also referred to *Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal*, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525, for the proposition that voluntary sex work is not illegal and that sex workers should not be arrested, penalised, harassed, or victimised during brothel raids.

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court treated the alleged failure to follow Section 15 as decisive. It found that the search and inspection had not been carried out by the required authorised officer or in accordance with the statutory procedure.

Applying *Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini*, the Court concluded that a search conducted contrary to Section 15 could not support the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

Its discussion of *Budhadev Karmaskar* reinforced the need not to treat the petitioners as offenders merely on the basis of their alleged sex work.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.