Immoral Trafficking Act | Safeguards Under Section 15(2) Not Mandatory For Search In Commercial Premises Like Spas: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has observed that the provisions related to search provided under Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are mandatory only if the place to be searched is a residential premises. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 300] As per Section 15(1), if a special police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence punishable under the Act is being committed in respect of a person living in any premises and that a search with a warrant cannot be conducted without undue delay, the officer could enter and search the premises without a warrant. As per Section 15(2), while conducting a search without a warrant, the police officer shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants (at least one of whom should be a woman) of the locality to attend and witness the search. Justice R Vijayakumar held that the mandatory provisions of search without a warrant would not be mandatory when the search is to be conducted at a commercial space. “...it is clear that the procedure contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act for calling upon two or more respectable inhabitants to attend the witness search would arise, only if the premises referred to under Section 15(1) of the Act is going to be searched. The premises referred to under Section 15(1) of the Act is a place where a person living. Hence, it is clear that the procedure contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act would apply only with regard to the residential premises and not to a commercial premises,” the court observed. The court also added that the object of the provision is to protect the privacy of the victim and to prevent disrepute that may be caused to the inmates of a building where a search was to be conducted as per the Act. The court made it clear that the provision is not meant to protect the right of the accused. The court thus refused to quash an FIR on the basis that the search was conducted without witnesses. “The object and purpose of Section 15(2) of ITP Act is to protect the privacy of the victim and to prevent conducting avoidable searches in the residential premises which may bring disrepute to the inmates of the building in that locality. The said provision is not in any way meant to protect the rights of the accused persons who are found to be involving in procuring the victim girl or conducting a brothel house. Therefore, when a purposive interpretation is given to Section 15(2) r/w Section 15(1) of ITP Act, the persons accused of the offence under ITP Act would not be entitled to raise such a defence, especially for the purpose of quashing of the F.I.R or the charge sheet on the said ground,” the court said. The court was hearing pleas filed by 4 persons seeking to quash the FIR registered against them for offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 5(1)(d), 6(1)(b) of the Immoral Traffic Act, 1956. As per the prosecution, on November 4, 2024, based on secret information, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police and two lady head constables obtained permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police and conducted a search in a Spa. During the search, two victim girls from Nagaland and Assam were found in a half-nude position in two rooms. When enquired, the ladies informed that they were brought to the spa under the guise of employment and compelled to indulge in prostitution. Based on this, an FIR was registered. Seeking to quash the FIR, the accused argued that the search was not conducted by a Special Police Officer as contemplated under the Act. It was also argued that two respectable inhabitants of the locality did not accompany the officers at the time of the search. The accused also submitted that the statements were recorded from the victim girls in a language which was not known to them, and their signatures were obtained by coercion. The accused argued that the FIR was completely false and the case was foisted against the Spa. The State, on the other hand, submitted that the Social Welfare Department had issued a Government Order as per which every police officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police was to be a Special Police Officer under the Act. It was also submitted that the mandatory provision regarding search without warrant would not be applicable in the present case. The state also informed the court that the statement of the victim girl was taken in the English language, which was known to the victim. The court noted that in the present case, the search was conducted by the Inspector of Police who had been appointed as a Special Police Officer under the Act. Thus, the court opined that the search was conducted by police officials having jurisdiction. The court also agreed with the State and noted that the statement of the victims had already been recorded by the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC. The court held that the affidavit produced by the accused, claiming that the victims did ...

Immoral Trafficking Act | Safeguards Under Section 15(2) Not Mandatory For Search In Commercial Premises Like Spas: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Immoral Trafficking Act | Safeguards Under Section 15(2) Not Mandatory For Search In Commercial Premises Like Spas: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers