BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22831 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.19771 of 2025

1. Surendaran

2. Vinoth ... Petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3

Vs.

State of Tamilnadu,

Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station,

Thanjavur District,

Crime No.41/2025. ... Respondent / Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the impugned FIR in Crime No. 41/2025 dated 05.09.2025 on the file of the respondent police and

quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Edin Brough

For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.41 of 2025 dated 05.09.2025, on the file of the first respondent police, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the ITP Act”).

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the impugned FIR. The gravamen of the prosecution case, even as reflected in the FIR, is that upon receipt of some information, the police allegedly found the first accused in a room in a state of half nudity along with the petitioners, based on which the impugned FIR came to be registered.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the contents of the FIR, is that on 05.09.2025, based on certain information received by the respondent police, the premises in question were inspected. It is alleged that the 2^nd and 3^rd accused were found inside a room in half nudity along with two separate women respectively in two different rooms. On the strength of the said allegation alone, the respondent police registered the FIR in Crime No.41 of 2025 for offences under Sections 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of the ITP Act.

4. The FIR does not disclose any allegation that the petitioners were running a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, procuring or inducing any person for prostitution, or managing the premises. The entire accusation against the petitioners is confined to their alleged presence in the room at the relevant point of time.

Grounds for quash:

5. The petitioners have assailed the impugned FIR, inter alia, on the following grounds:

The FIR is vague, cryptic and bereft of foundational facts necessary to attract the offences under Sections 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of the ITP Act. Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, no offence is made out against the petitioners, as they are not alleged to have lived on the earnings of prostitution nor to have procured or induced any person. The petitioners are, at the highest, alleged to be customers, and the ITP Act does not criminalise the mere act of being a customer under Sections 4 or 5. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law and cause grave prejudice.

Submissions:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the statutory scheme of the ITP Act clearly distinguishes between offenders such as brothel keepers, managers, procurers and persons living on the earnings of prostitution, on the one hand, and mere customers, on the other. It is contended that Section 4(1) penalises only a person who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of prostitution, while Section 5(1)(a) deals with procuring, inducing or taking a person for prostitution. There is not even a whisper in the FIR suggesting the commission of any such acts by the petitioners. The learned counsel would further submit that the FIR is liable to be quashed at the threshold, as permitting the investigation to continue would result in unwarranted harassment a