(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.)

Preface:

1. 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.

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.

                     (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. Noncompliance, it is argued, vitiates the entire proceedings. Reliance is placed on the decision in Vinu vs. State((2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 226)), 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 Lal(1992 Supp(1) SCC 335), 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 Police(Crl.O.P. 922 of 2021), wherein this Court held:

                     “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 Gujarat(1969(1) SCC 43), 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?

Analysis:

13. The scope of inherent power is well-settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal(1992 Supp(1) SCC 335), 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.

16. Section 15 mandates:

                     (i)Recording of reasons for search

                     (ii) Presence of independent witnesses

                     (iii) Participation of women officers.In Vinu vs State(Supra) (2023), it was reiterated that these safeguards are essential.

However, the binding precedent in Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat(Supra) 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, falls within the category of “mere suspicion”, which cannot constitute a prima facie offence.

20. Applying the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal(Supra), 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 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 1st respondent is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.