FIR quashed for lacking prima facie case and material evidence beyond mere suspicion in trafficking allegations.

ORDER

Preface:

The present Criminal Original Petition invites this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to interdict the criminal proceedings at the threshold. The petitioner seeks quashment of an FIR registered under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter “ITP Act”) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The case brings into sharp focus the delicate balance between two competing considerations:

(i) the need to prevent abuse of criminal process where allegations are founded merely on suspicion or procedural illegality;

and (ii) the settled restraint that Courts must exercise at the stage of investigation, particularly in offences touching upon societal morality and trafficking.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR, is that on

08.12.2025, a police official visited the petitioner’s premises under the guise of a customer and allegedly enquired about procuring women for prostitution. It is alleged that the petitioner stated that two women were available and demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- for selection of one of them. Based on such conversation, the police concluded that the petitioner was running prostitution activities under the guise of a home care service.

4. Consequently, the FIR in Crime No.456 of 2025 came to be registered for offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 5(1)(a) and 5(1) (d) of the ITP Act and Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to trafficking).

Grounds for quash:

5. The petitioner seeks quashment primarily on the following grounds:

(i) The petitioner is running a legitimate home care service and not a brothel.

(ii) The FIR is based solely on an alleged conversation without corroboration.

(iii) Mandatory safeguards under Section 15 of the ITP Act were not complied with.

(iv) No independent witnesses were present during the alleged inspection.

(v) There was no recovery, victim rescue, or medical examination.

(vi) CCTV footage allegedly disproves the prosecution case.

(vii) The respondent police are not competent “Special Police Officers”.

(viii) The entire FIR is based on suspicion and amounts to abuse of process.

Submissions on either side:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the FIR is wholly unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed as it does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is further contended that Section 15 of the ITP Act mandates strict procedural compliance, including presence of independent witnesses, recording of reasons, and search by authorised officers. Non- compliance, it is argued, vitiates the entire proceedings. Reliance is placed on the decision in Vinu vs. State, (2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 226), wherein it was held that when a search is conducted under Section 15(2) of the ITP Act, the officer is obligated to call upon two respectable inhabitants of the locality, one of whom shall be a woman.

7. It is further submitted that the FIR falls within the categories laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal² particularly where allegations are inherently improbable and proceedings are mala fide.

8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the FIR discloses a clear prima facie case. It is contended that at the stage of investigation, this Court ought not to embark upon appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed facts. It is further argued that procedural irregularities, if any, are matters for trial and do not warrant quashing of FIR.

9. Strong reliance