IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.MP.No.389 of 2026 1. Rachel Marianmai

2. Bolivi ...Petitioners Vs.

1. State represented by, The Inspector of Police, C-1, Kattoor Police Station, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

Crime No.40 of 2025.

2. Raja ...Respondents Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records, quash the C.C.No.1753 of 2025 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court at Coimbatore District, insofar as the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4 are concerned.

For Petitioners : Mr.C.D.Sugumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh, GA (Crl.Side), for R1

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1753 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore District, insofar as the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4 are concerned.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.OP.No.24168 of 2025 dated 06.10.2025, wherein this Court had quashed the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1753 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore District, in respect of the co-accused. He further relied on the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Swathi vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr in Criminal Petition No.807 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024 and submitted that the petitioners being the victims, cannot be permitted to be prosecuted for the offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, as the same is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, he prayed for quashing the impugned proceedings.

3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1^st respondent did not dispute the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. This Court perused the order passed in Crl.OP.No.24168 of

2025 dated 06.10.2025, wherein, this Court has held as under:-

“Challenging the final report filed in C.C.No.1753 of

2025 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore for the offences under sections 4[2][c], 3[2][a] and 5[1][d] of Immoral Traffic [Prevention] Act, 1956, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as A5 in the final report.

According to the petitioner, she is a victim. Whereas, she has been made as an accused for the offence under section 4[2][c] of ITP Act. The crux of the prosecution case is that, A2 induced the defacto complainant to come to his spa for prostitution where the other accused are present. Except the said allegation, there is no allegation made against the petitioner. According to the petitioner she was involved in prostitution and she is only a victim to the crime. Further there is no materials to show that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner had involved in any sexual act.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that under the pretext of massage centre, a brothel was run by A.1.

4. The present petition is filed by A.5. The very final report filed by the Police would indicate that the petitioner was present while sex workers were in the said massage centre. Even if the entire report is taken at its face value, the said report does not show any offence committed by the petitioner, except for the alleged presence of the petitioner at the said place. Further, there is no material to show that the petitioner was involved in any sexual act at the said place and that the persons, who have been rescued from the said place have not made any allegation against any of the individuals, much less the petitioner.

5. In this backdrop, the decision of the Hon-ble Apex Court in BUDHADEV KARMASKAR Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &