Madras High Court
B.Manju vs The State Rep. By on 11 September, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3657 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3657 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.2880 of 2024
1.B.Manju
2.A.Balasubramanian
3.V.Manikandan ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Aralvoimozhi Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.177 of 2023) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in
Crime No.177 of 2023 pending on the file of the respondent police and
quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
_____________
Page No. 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:01:32 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3657 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.177 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, registered
against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)
(c), 5(1)(a), and 7(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. The allegation against the petitioners in the FIR is that they,
along with another lady, were found in a house under suspicious
circumstances, and on enquiry, they informed the Inspector of Police that
they had indulged in prostitution on the instigation of two agents, and that
a sum of Rs.12,500/- was found in the house during the search.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law; that in any case, the
proceedings cannot be sustained since the respondent had not complied
with the mandatory provisions under Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956, inasmuch as the search was not conducted
pursuant to a warrant and no reason has been assigned for dispensing with
the requirement of a warrant; that the respondent police had not sought the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:01:32 pm )
assistance of two respectable members of the locality to witness the
search; that the issue is directly covered by several judgments of this
Court, including the judgment in Balu @ Balasubramanian v. The State
rep. by the Inspector of Police, Reddiyarpalayam Police Station,
Puducherry District, dated 18.02.2021, rendered in Crl.O.P.No.30001 of
2019, and the judgment in Haja Nawaz v. The State rep. by the Inspector
of Police, Kottar Police Station, Kanyakumari District, dated
13.04.2022, rendered in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15214 of 2021; that in view of
the violation of the mandatory provisions, no purpose would be served in
allowing the respondent to conduct the investigation and proceed with the
case; and that the Inspector of Police is neither the Special Police Officer
nor the Trafficking Police Officer as required under Section 15 of the Act.
4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the
respondent, who is unable to justify the action of the respondent in
conducting a search without a warrant and would submit that the Inspector
of Police is neither the Special Police Officer nor the Trafficking Police
Officer. He would also submit that the search was not conducted in the
presence of two respectable members of the locality to witness the search.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:01:32 pm )
5. In the light of the undisputed position that the mandatory
provisions under Section 15 of the Act have not been complied with, the
question is whether the further proceedings can be allowed to continue.
This Court, in similar circumstances, had quashed the FIR in Haja Nawaz
v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station,
Kanyakumari District, dated 13.04.2022, rendered in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.
15214 of 2021, after referring to the judgment of this Court in Kadek Dwi
Ani Rasmini and others v. K. Natarajan and others, reported in 2019 (1)
LW (Crl) 94, with the following observations:
“7. In the case on hand, 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 an authorized officer under
Section 15 of the Act.
8. This Court has time and again held that if the
search and inspection is not carried out by following the
procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act, the
entire proceeding becomes illegal in the eye of law.
9. In view of the above observations, the entire
proceeding itself is vitiated and this Court has no
hesitation to interfere with the proceedings in Crime No.
81 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021 on the file of the first
respondent and same is hereby quashed. Accordingly,
this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:01:32 pm )
6. This Court, in yet another case in Balu @ Balasubramanian v.
The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Reddiyarpalayam Police
Station, Puducherry District, dated 18.02.2021, rendered in Crl.O.P.No.
30001 of 2019, had observed as follows:
“9. In the present case, 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 an authorized Officer under
Section 15 of the Act.
10. This Court has time and again held that if the
search and inspection is not carried out by following the
procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act, the
entire proceedings becomes illegal in the eye of law. This
is yet another case where the respondent Police failed to
follow the mandatory procedure under Section 15 of the
Act.
11. This ground by itself will vitiate the
proceedings and therefore, this Court has no hesitation to
interfere with the proceedings in STC No. 888 of 2019 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Puducherry and
the same is hereby quashed, insofar as the petitioner is
concerned and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.”
7. A similar view was taken by this Court in Manikandan v. The
Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai City and
another, dated 09.11.2020, rendered in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17180 of 2019
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:01:32 pm )
and in C.Karthick v. The Inspector of Police, Thilagarthidal Police
Station, Madurai City, dated 21.09.2023, rendered in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.
18066 of 2022.
8. Though the challenge in the above cases, except in Crl.O.P.(MD)
No.18066 of 2022, pertained to the final report, this Court is of the view
that it would hardly make any difference, as failure to comply with the
mandatory provisions would vitiate the entire proceedings. Hence, this
Court is inclined to quash the impugned FIR. Accordingly, the impugned
FIR is quashed.
9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11.09.2025
JEN
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Copy To:
1.The Inspector of Police,
Aralvoimozhi Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:01:32 pm )
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:01:32 pm )
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN
11.09.2025
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:01:32 pm )
