BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.OP(MD)No.17554 of 2025 &

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.14297 & 14298 of 2025 Palaniyappa Perumal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.

(Crime No.386 of 2021)

2.Chandra, Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in C.C.No. 161 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tirunelveli and quash the same as against the petitioner / accused no.2 is concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Saravanakumar For respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the impugned final report for the offences under sections 3(1), 3(2)(b), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(c) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. The allegation in the final report is that the petitioner arrayed as A2 along with other accused was running a brothel in a hotel and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court had quashed the impugned final report as against A1 on the ground that the officer who conducted the search is not an authorised officer and that insofar as this petitioner is concerned, additionally, two other mandatory provisions i.e, Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] have been violated and hence the impugned prosecution is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent, submitted that the first respondent Police had conducted a search without a warrant and that the grounds of belief for entering into the premises without a warrant has also not been recorded and that since no inhabitants were available, the search was conducted by the police party; and that the points raised by the petitioner can be agitated only during the trial and sought for dismissal of the quash petition.

5. This Court has repeatedly held that the provisions of Section 15 of the Act are mandatory in nature. Any search conducted in violation of any of the provisions in Section 15 of the Act would render the search illegal and the consequential prosecution is unsustainable. This Court in Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini and others vs. K.Natarajan and others reported in 2019(1) LW Crl.94 has held as follows:-

“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,