The procedural safeguards under Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, regarding search witnesses, pertain to residential premises to protect privacy. Procedural non-compliance does not automatically vitiate an FIR unless the accused demonstrates actual prejudice, and jurisdictional officers are covered under existing governmental appointments.

COMMON ORDER

These two petitions have been filed by Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.708 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai City seeking to quash the F.I.R dated 04.11.2024 wherein they are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 5(1)(d), 6(1)(b) of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 (ITP Act).

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.A perusal of the F.I.R reveals that on receipt of secret information on 04.11.2024 at about 1.45 p.m, the Special Sub Inspector of Police and two lady Head-Constables, after obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, have conducted a search in a Spa at Anna Nagar, Madurai. During search, it was found that two victim girls from Nagaland and Assam where found in half-nude position in two rooms where there were no facilities for conducting massage. There were no proper lighting and the rooms were kept locked from inside at the time of inspection. When it was enquired with the ladies found there, they informed that, under the guise of engaging them in the profession of massage, they have been brought here and compelled to indulge in prostitution.

3.Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the manager and the receptionist of the Spa and Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the partners who are running the Spa. Challenging the said F.I.R, the present petitions have been filed seeking to quash the same.

(B).Contentions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the search was not conducted by the Special Police Officer as contemplated under Section 13 of ITP Act. The search have been conducted by a regular Police, is clearly without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside.

5.The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that as per Section 15(2) of ITP Act, before making a search under Section 15(1), the Special Police Officer has to call for two or more respectable inhabitants (at least one of whom shall be a woman) of that locality to attend and witness the search. However, in the present case admittedly two or more respectable inhabitants have not accompanied before the officials. The said procedure being mandatory in nature and the search having been conducted in violation of the statutory provisions, the F.I.R registered on the basis of the said search is liable to be quashed.

6.The learned Senior Counsel had relied upon a judgment of this Court reported (2019) 1 CTC 385 ( Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini Vs. K.Natarajan , Inspector of Police and others) wherein in paragraph Nos. 27 and 28, this Court was pleased to point out that the procedure contemplated under Section 15(2) is mandatory and having not been followed was pleased to quash the proceedings.

7.The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the following decisions rendered by this Court:

(i)Crl.OP(MD).No.15863 of 2020 ( Mathan Franko and others Vs.State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Nesamony Nagar Police Station, Kanyakumari District and another) dated 03.04.2024;

(ii)Crl.OP(MD).No.3657 of 2024 ( B.Manju and others Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Arlvoimozhi Police Station, Kanyakumari District) dated 11.09.2025;

(iii)Crl.OP(MD).No.18737 of 2025 (Lawrance Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vadaseri Police Station, Nagercoil) dated 28.10.2025;

(iv)Crl.OP(MD).No.17554