[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Yashmin Nushrath vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 30 April, 2026
Crl.OP(MD)No.1159 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1159 of 2026
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1219 of 2026
Yashmin Nushrath
... Petitioner/Accused No.
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Alanganallur Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No. 456 of 2025).
.... Respondent / Complainant
2. V.Sureshkumar
..... Respondent /
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to Crime No. 456/2025
on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Mohan
For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1159 of 2026
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
placed on the decision in Vinu vs. State1, 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 is placed on the decision in Hema Jwaalini
v. Commissioner of Police3, wherein this Court held:
1 (2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 226)
2 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
3 Crl.O.P. 922 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“Non-observance of Section 15 of the ITP Act would not vitiate the
entire proceedings and such provisions are only directory not
mandatory.”
10. The learned Government Advocate also relies on the
judgment in Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat4, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the entire proceedings would not become
illegal owing to non-compliance with Section 15 unless prejudice is
shown.
11. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully
perused the materials available on record.
Point for consideration:
12. The principal point that arises for consideration is whether
the FIR in Crime No.456 of 2025 is liable to be quashed at the
threshold in exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS, on the
grounds of lack of prima facie case and procedural violations under
the ITP Act?
4 1969(1) SCC 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Analysis:
13. The scope of inherent power is well-settled. In State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enumerated
categories where quashing is permissible, including:
“Where the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and
inherently improbable that no prudent person can reach a
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.”
14. However, it is equally settled that such power must be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
15. Section 3 of the ITP Act requires proof of “keeping or
managing a brothel”. Section 4 contemplates “living on the earnings
of prostitution”. Section 5 requires evidence of “procuring or inducing
persons for prostitution”. In the present case, the FIR is founded
solely upon an alleged conversation without recovery, victim
identification, or corroborative material. Prima facie, the absence of
any rescued victim or material evidence weakens the prosecution
case at its inception.
5 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. Section 15 mandates:
(i)Recording of reasons for search
(ii) Presence of independent witnesses
(iii) Participation of women officers.In Vinu vs State6 (2023), it
was reiterated that these safeguards are essential.
However, the binding precedent in Bai Radha v. State of
Gujarat7 clarifies that the non-compliance with Section 15 does not
ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless prejudice is established.
17. Similarly, in Hema Jwaalini v. Commissioner of Police,
it was held that Section 15 is directory and not mandatory;
irregularities are matters of evidence.
18. Therefore, procedural lapses alone cannot be a ground for
quashing at FIR stage.
19. The entire prosecution hinges upon a purported oral
conversation between a decoy and the petitioner. No money
exchange, no victim rescue, and no independent corroboration are
shown. Such uncorroborated allegation, without further material,
6 Supra
7 Supra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
falls within the category of “mere suspicion”, which cannot constitute
a prima facie offence.
20. Applying the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal8, this Court finds:
(i)The allegations are not supported by material evidence
(ii)The FIR is based solely on inference drawn from
conversation
(iii)Essential ingredients of offences are not prima facie
established. Thus, the case falls within the category:
“Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently
improbable…”
21. The law does not countenance the use of criminal process
as a tool of conjecture. While the object of the ITP Act is to combat
trafficking and exploitation, the same cannot be invoked in the
absence of foundational facts.
22. The dignity of law enforcement lies not merely in the zeal to
prevent crime, but in adherence to procedure and evidentiary
8 Supra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
discipline. Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof,
even at the threshold of criminal prosecution.
23. At the same time, this Court is conscious that quashing at
the FIR stage must be exercised with restraint. Yet, where the FIR
itself fails to disclose the commission of any offence, judicial
intervention becomes not only permissible, but necessary to prevent
abuse of process.
24. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the FIR does not disclose a prima facie case
warranting investigation.
25. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and
the FIR in Crime No.456 of 2025 on the file of the 1 st respondent is
quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.04.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Alanganallur Police Station,
Madurai District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
30.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
