CRL OP/29811/2026 of Ashma Vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1376 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,Additional Mahila Court,Coimbatore.

2. Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, based on a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant/second respondent, the first respondent police registered an FIR in crime No.778 of 2024. It is alleged that while the second respondent was standing at the bus stop, A1 introduced himself and stated that they had women available for prostitution, thereby inviting him. The second respondent accepted the invitation, entered the place of occurrence, and saw all the accused persons. They tried to seduce the defacto complainant, who immediately left the place of occurrence.

4. According to the petitioners, who are arrayed as A3 to A6, they are sex workers. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners were neither running a brothel nor living on the earnings of prostitution. It is contended that under the scheme of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, they are victims and not offenders, even if they were allegedly found on the premises removing their clothes and hugging the complainant.

5. Even assuming that they were running a brothel or living on the earnings of the prostitution of others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Budhadev Karmaskar Vs. State of West Bengal and others (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525), upheld that voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running a brothel is unlawful. The Apex Court directed the police to act according to the guidelines, which mandate that whenever there is a raid on any brothel, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested, penalised, harassed, or victimised.

6. Furthermore, the first respondent failed to follow the mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The inspection was not carried out by the Special Police Officer or the Trafficking Police Officer. Additionally, the first respondent was not an authorised officer as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act.

7. In this regard it is relavant to rely upon the judgement of this Court in Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini and others vs. K. Natarajan and others reported in 2019(1) LW Crl 94, are extracted hereunder:-

28. A careful look at the provisions of Section 15 would show that a Special Police Officer or a Trafficking Police Officer can enter upon any premises and cause a search without warrant, only after satisfying the following:—

(i) he should have reasonable grounds for believing that an offence punishable under this Act has been or is being committed;

(ii) he must believe that such an offence is committed in respect of a person living in the premises;

(iii) he should believe that the search of the premises with warrant cannot be made without undue delay; and

(iv) he must record the grounds of his belief before entering the premises.

29. The expression “Special Police Officer” is defined in Section 2(i) of the Act, to mean a Police Officer appointed by or on behalf of the State Government to be in charge of police duties within a specified area for the purpose of this Act. Similarly, the expression “Trafficking Police Officer” is defined in Section 2(j) to mean a Police Officer appointed by the Central Government under Section 13(4). I do not know and I have not come across any such Trafficking Police Officer appointed by the Central Government in terms of Section 13(4), at least in the State of Tamil Nadu.

30. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 15, the Special Police Officer or the Trafficking Police Officer should also call upon two or more respectable inhabitants, at least one of whom should be a woman of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search. For the purpose of enforcing the attendance of such respectable inhabitants, the Police Officer is obliged to issue an order in writing to them. If the person, who is called upon to attend and witness the search, refuses or neglects to comply with the notice, despite an order in writing being delivered to him, he is liable to be punished for an offence under Section 187 of the IPC, by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 15. An immunity is granted under Sub-section (6) of Section 15 to persons taking part in or attending and witnessing a search, from any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of anything lawfully done in connection with the search.

31. The Special Police Officer or the Trafficking Police Officer, who makes a search, should be accompanied by at least two women Police Officers. If any woman or girl is removed under Sub- section (4) from the premises of search, she could be interrogated only by the woman Police Officer.

32. Day in and day out, newspapers compete with each other in publishing reports along with photographs of girls, whenever any search is carried out under Section 15 of the Act and any woman is removed from a place. The website of the National Crime Records Bureau shows that a total of about 2,44,270 incidents of crime against women were reported in the whole country during the year 2012. Out of them, about 2563 constitute cases under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Interestingly, 19.5% of such cases (about 500 cases out of those 2563 cases) were reported only in Tamil Nadu. This can be taken either as an indication that incidents of crime under the said Act is on the increase in Tamil Nadu or as an indication of the role played by the Police in the State of Tamil Nadu in taking the crimes under this Act more seriously than what their counterparts in the other States do.

33. Unfortunately, no accountability is fixed on the police to see whether all the requirements of Section 15 are complied with or not. No one calls upon the Special Police Officer or the Trafficking Police Officer (i) to produce records to show whether he has minuted the grounds of his belief that an offence punishable under the Act is committed or has been committed in respect of a person living in any premises,

(ii) to produce records to show his subjective satisfaction that the search of the premises with warrant cannot be made without undue delay, (iii) to produce records to show whether two respectable inhabitants of the locality attended and witnessed the search, (iv) to show whether persons removed from such premises were subjected to medical examination and produced before the appropriate Magistrate immediately, and (v) to produce proof to show that two women Police Officers accompanied them and the interrogation of any woman was done only by them.

34. Many times, even persons who are booked under the provisions of this Act, do not appear to challenge the procedure adopted. This is perhaps due to the fact that in most of the cases, the Police find it convenient to book a person only for an offence under Section 8, which is punishable on first conviction, either with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, it appears that people choose to plead guilty and pay the fine even on the first occasion and get off, instead of going through the mill, by facing the prosecution and challenging the procedure followed by the Police. The remedy is seen as worse than the disease.

35. Therefore, the only presumption that I can draw is that as against the writ petitioners herein, the Police did not carry out a search by following all the steps prescribed in Section 15. When the mandate of the law is so clear in Section 15, the respondents cannot carry out a search de hors Section 15.

36. The conclusion that we can arrive at, on the basis of the above discussion, is twofold. If the Police carry out a search of the premises where the petitioners are carrying on business activities, after following all the steps prescribed in Section 15, the petitioners cannot come under Article 226, but may have to seek redressal somewhere else. But, if the respondents are in the habit of carrying out searches in a manner not prescribed by Section 15, then the same actually tantamount to an unlawful interference with the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on any business or profession which is not declared as unlawful by any legislation.

8. The above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Since the search and inspection was not carried out by following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the entire criminal proceedings becomes illegal and cannot be sustainable in law.

9. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1376 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,

Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MPA To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore.

2. The Inspector of Police Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. MPA CRL OP No. 29811 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.19842 & 19841 of 2026 13-10-2026