BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.20068 and 20069 of 2025

1.Geetha @ Latha

2.Sivasubramanian @ Karthick ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar.

(Crime No.5 of 2023)

2.Packia Mary ... Respondent PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records connected to the proceedings in C.C.No.47 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners.

For Petitioners : Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.47 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 27.02.2023, at about 02.00 p.m., based on the secret information received by the second respondent, the respondent police sent a search warrant to the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate and went to the spot of the alleged brothel business and a thorough search was conducted. On enquiry and search, they found that the accused person was running the brothel business with one woman and also seized a sum of Rs.16,000/- from the accused person. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as far as the petitioners are concerned, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that none of the mandatory provisions under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, has been followed while searching the premises and the case has been registered against the settled principles of law. He would further submit that the second respondent is not the authorised officer to conduct the investigation as contemplated under Section 13 of the Act. The arrest was also not done under the Act and while searching the premises, the procedures prescribed under Section 3 (1), 3(2)(b), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(c) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, have been violated. Thus, he would pray to quash the impugned proceedings. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submissions, relied upon the order of this Court in the case of Ganeshan Vs. State¹, vide order dated 26.04.2024, in which, this Court held that since the inspection was not carried out by the Special Police Officer or the Trafficking Police Officer, and the officer who carried out the inspection was not authorised under Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the inspection was illegal. Therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated and a clear abuse of process of law. Hence, he sought the indulgence of this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Mr.M.Kottaichamy, submitted that as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 618, Social Welfare department, dated 13.04.1987, any Officer not below the rank of the Inspector of Police can be the Special Police Officer for dealing the offences under the Special Act and below the rank of Sub Inspector of Police can be a search officer to assist the Special Officer concerned and in the case on hand, the 2^nd respondent is a Sub-Inspector of Police who assisted the investigation conducted by the 1^st respondent/the Investigating Officer, and the same is evident from a bare perusal of the FIR and the charge sheet. Defending the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent had inspected the premises in question, thereby initiating the entire

1 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18783 of 2022 investigation, the learned Government Advocate, relying upon the judgment of the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat²,