IMPORTANT POINT
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act is essential, and failure to do so can result in liability for unlawful actions.

JUDGMENT :

C. Kumarappan, J.

[PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP.No.29995 of 2018 dated 02.01.2019.]

The instant Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 02.01.2019 passed in WP.No.29995 of 2018. It is pertinent to mention here that the above writ petition has been disposed of by a common order along with a batch of Criminal OPs.

2. The appellant is the first respondent before the Writ Court. The first respondent herein was the petitioner. The respondents 2 to 5 before the Writ Court, are arrayed on the same ranks before this Court.

3. The Writ petition No.29995 of 2018 has been filed by the first respondent herein praying to declare all the actions/proceeding against her pursuant to the registration of FIR No.1518 of 2018 dated 01.10.2018, and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to adequately compensate the petitioner for the loss of personal liberty, loss of personal reputation, loss of job and for mental agony.

4. The brief facts which give rise to the instant Writ Appeal is that, the appellant at the relevant point of time was the Inspector of Police in J-8 Neelankarai Police Station. The first respondent is an Indonesian citizen and was working as a Massage Therapist in the 5th respondent's SPA. It appears that on 01.10.2018 the appellant raided the 5th respondent's SPA, on the apprehension that under the guise of SPA, they are running a brothel house. He also arrested the owner of the said SPA and has rescued the alleged victims which includes the first respondent.

5. It was the further submission of the first respondent herein that, she being the Indonesian national, by virtue of the Central Government Official Memorandum No.14051/14/2011-F.VI dated 01.05.2012, it becomes incumbent and mandatory upon the Investigating Officer qua the appellant herein to inform about the rescuing of the first respondent to the Indonesian Consulate. However, such mandatory requirement was not followed by the appellant herein. She further submits that she is a certified Therapist and has been doing massage therapy in India based on the work visa issued by the Government of India, and has also been paying Income Tax to the Government. It is the further contention of the first respondent that by the denigrative act of the appellant herein, she faces the ignominy, which constrained her to return to Indonesia.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that, the appellant is the sincere Police Officer and that only upon the credible information, he bona fidely raided the SPA and has found that there were some illegal activities going on. It is the further contention of the appellant that, as a sincere police officer, he rescued the first respondent and relieved from the clutches of the accused. He further submits that, he took necessary initiative and emancipated the victim from the custody of the accused and made all arrangements for her safe stay, protection, care and custody. It is the further contention of the appellant that he has followed all the statutory, mandatory requirements while dealing with the foreign Nationals, and that he informed to the Indonesian Consulate. Therefore, vehemently contended that he never violated any of the provisions of law, and that had conducted himself bona fidely, that too based upon the credible information. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, and would contend that the order of recovery passed by the learned Single Judge from the appellant is erroneous and prayed to set aside the same.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to either side submissions.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that the FIR registered by the appellant herein was subsequently quashed in connected Criminal OPs by common order passed along with the impugned WP.No.29995 of 2018. Admittedly, there are no records available as to the filing of the appeal aga