Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J
Geetha – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore District. (Crime No.757/2024) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners charged under itp act in brothel case. (Para 2) |
| 2. no soliciting evidence; petitioners as victims. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. prosecution alleges arrest based on complaint. (Para 5) |
| 4. insufficient proof of pimping; financial dispute motive. (Para 6) |
| 5. proceedings quashed; property returned. (Para 7) |
For Petitioners : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar For R1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER The petitioners/A3 and A4 in C.C.No.3718 of 2025, who are facing trial for the offence under Section 4(2)(c) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITP Act’) filed this quash petition.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 30.11.2024 at about 4.00 p.m. the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he is a resident of Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District and he is known to A1 an A2. The defacto complainant is doing finance business and A1 who is from Tirunelveli and A2 from Nagercoil borrowed loan from the defacto complainant. A1 and A2 running a Spa Centre in Rolex Arcade, Coimbatore. On 30.11.2024 at about 2.30 p.m., the defacto complainant went to the Spa Centre of A1 and A2 seeking for return of money, at that time, A1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
