The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad has quashed criminal proceedings initiated under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, against two individuals accused of operating a brothel. In a ruling that underscores the necessity of strict procedural adherence by law enforcement, the bench presided over by Justice Venkatesh Naik T determined that the raid conducted at a lodge in Athani City was fundamentally flawed due to the lack of authorized investigative powers and the failure to observe mandatory search protocols involving the presence of female witnesses.

The case originated from a raid conducted by the Police Sub-Inspector of the Athani Police Station following allegations of illicit activity at Venkateshwara Lodge. During the operation, authorities seized various articles and registered an FIR for offences under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. However, the petitioners, who were named as accused in the matter, approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings, arguing that the investigation was initiated and conducted without the necessary legal authorization mandated by the special statute.

Jurisdictional Authority of Investigating Officers

A primary contention raised by the defense was that the investigating officer lacked the legal standing to initiate such a raid. Under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the authority to investigate offences is reserved for a "Special Police Officer" (SPO) specifically appointed by the state government. The court observed that there was no official notification presented to establish that the investigating officer held this designated status.

Referring to the statutory requirement, the Court stated, " Section 13 of the Act specifies that, there shall be for each area to be specified by the State Government in this behalf a special police officer appointed by or on behalf of that Government." The court further elucidated that the rank of such an officer is strictly regulated, noting that in the absence of a specific notification empowering the local police officers, they cannot be deemed to have the statutory authority required to investigate crimes under the ITP Act . The Bench clarified that the mere holding of a general police rank, such as a Sub-Inspector or Inspector, does not automatically grant the specific powers of an SPO unless the government has issued a formal notification to that effect.

Mandatory Compliance with Search Protocols

Beyond the issue of authority, the High Court emphasized that the procedural safeguards designed to protect the integrity of search and seizure operations were disregarded. Section 15(2) of the Act mandates that a raiding party must be accompanied by a respectable woman from the locality. The court found that this provision was entirely ignored during the raid at the lodge. The absence of such a witness, coupled with the failure of the police to record any justification in the spot mahazar—such as the unavailability of local residents or female participants—rendered the operation legally unsustainable.

Highlighting the gravity of this oversight, the Court noted, " Section 15(2) of the ITP Act reveals that atleast one of the witness shall be a respectable women from the said locality at the time of search seizure, but, that was not done by the police officer." The court reasoned that when a statute prescribes a specific, mandatory method for performing an act, that act must be performed in that exact manner or not at all. Consequently, the lack of a female witness at the time of the raid was deemed a gross violation of the Act’s mandatory provisions, invalidating the subsequent evidence collected during the operation.

Judicial Precedent and Final Outcome

During the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioners drew the court’s attention to several precedents, including the rulings in Dharmanna vs. The State of Karnataka and Mr. Praveen Kumar M.S. vs. State of Karnataka . These judgments have consistently held that the provisions regarding the appointment of a Special Police Officer and the mandatory presence of a female witness during searches under the ITP Act are not mere directory guidelines but are essential requirements to ensure a fair and lawful investigation.

The State, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, had attempted to argue that any irregularity in the registration of the case or the procedural conduct of the raid should not serve as grounds for quashing the entire proceeding, suggesting that such matters could be addressed during the trial. However, the Court rejected this, asserting that allowing a prosecution to proceed when the foundational steps of the investigation are in direct contradiction with the law constitutes an " abuse of the process of law ."

In its final determination, the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no legitimate purpose, as the investigation was initiated by officers lacking the requisite authority and carried out in violation of statutory search mandates. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and ordered the entire proceedings in Crime No. 506/2026 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Athani, to be quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioners. This order brings an immediate end to the prosecution for the two men, affirming that the rigorous standards of the ITP Act must be followed without exception by the state authorities.