Madurai Bench Holds Section 15(2) ITP Act Safeguard Does Not Apply to Commercial Spa Premises, Dismisses FIR Quash Petitions
The Madurai Bench refused to quash an FIR against spa partners and staff, ruling that the procedural safeguard of calling respectable inhabitants before a search applies only to residential premises under the ITP Act.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 3 July 2026 dismissed two petitions filed by the manager, receptionist, and two partners of a spa in Anna Nagar, Madurai, seeking to quash an FIR registered against them for offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act). Justice R. Vijayakumar, sitting singly, held that the safeguard under Section 15(2) of the ITP Act — which requires a Special Police Officer to call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to witness a search — applies only when the premises being searched is a residential one, not a commercial establishment. The court also rejected the argument that a regular police officer cannot qualify as a Special Police Officer under Section 13 of the ITP Act, and declined to rely on post-FIR affidavits submitted on behalf of the rescued victims.
The Spa Raid and the FIR
On 4 November 2024, at approximately 1.45 p.m., the Special Sub Inspector of Police along with two lady Head-Constables, acting on secret information and after obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, conducted a search at a spa in Anna Nagar, Madurai. The search party found two women from Nagaland and Assam in a half-nude condition inside two locked rooms. The rooms had no facilities for conducting massage and lacked proper lighting. When questioned, the women stated they had been brought to the spa under the pretext of massage work and were being compelled to engage in prostitution.
An FIR was registered as Crime No. 708 of 2024 at the Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai City, alleging offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 5(1)(d), and 6(1)(b) of the ITP Act. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 — S. Prem Kumar and S. Ponraj — were the manager and receptionist. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 — Y. Gnana Ganesh and T. Muruganantham — were partners running the spa. Two separate quash petitions were filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Crl.OP(MD) No. 21999 of 2024 by Accused Nos. 3 and 4, and Crl.OP(MD) No. 573 of 2025 by Accused Nos. 1 and 2.
Arguments of the Petitioners
Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel for the petitioners, raised three principal contentions. First, the search was not conducted by a Special Police Officer as contemplated under Section 13 of the ITP Act; a regular police officer had no jurisdiction to conduct such a search. Second, even if the officer had jurisdiction, the procedure under Section 15(2) of the ITP Act was violated. That sub-section mandates that before making a search, the Special Police Officer must call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, including at least one woman, to attend and witness the search. Admittedly, no such inhabitants accompanied the search party. The Senior Counsel argued this requirement is mandatory and its breach vitiates the FIR.
In support, the Senior Counsel relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court reported in (2019) 1 CTC 385 (Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini v. K. Natarajan, Inspector of Police and others), which had quashed proceedings on the ground of non-compliance with Section 15(2). He also cited a Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 457 of 2020 (K. Natraja v. Ms. Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini and others) dated 18 July 2024 that confirmed the earlier ruling, along with several other Madurai Bench decisions in similar matters. The Senior Counsel further relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Prajwala v. Union of India and others, 2026 INSC 609, at Paragraph 362, Clause (b)(x), as upholding the mandatory nature of Section 15(2).
Third, the petitioners placed on record affidavits from five rescued victim girls, all dated 24 December 2024, stating that their signatures were obtained by coercion on statements written in Tamil, a language they could neither read nor understand. The Senior Counsel submitted that Section 161(3) CrPC statements were extracted by force and therefore the entire prosecution case was false.
The State's Response
Mr. P. Samuel Gunasingh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), countered on each point. On the identity of the search officer, he pointed to G.O.Ms. 618, Social Welfare Department, dated 13 April 1987, under which the Tamil Nadu Government had, exercising power under Section 13 of the ITP Act, appointed every police officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police as a Special Police Officer. The Inspector of Police, Anti-Human and Child Trafficking Unit (AHTU), Madurai City, led the search in the present case. There was accordingly no violation of Section 13.
On Section 15(2), the Government Advocate relied on two earlier Madras High Court rulings: Crl.OP No. 922 of 2021 (Hema Jwaalini and others v. Commissioner of Police) dated 29 April 2022, reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 1960, and Crl.OP No. 6295 of 2024 (Balaji v. State) dated 16 July 2024. Both decisions had held that the Section 15(2) safeguard is triggered only when the place to be searched is residential, and does not apply to a commercial premises. He also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat, 1969 (1) SCC 43, for the proposition that non-compliance with Sections 15(1) and 15(2) does not by itself vitiate proceedings unless actual prejudice to the accused is demonstrated — and that such prejudice can only be assessed at trial, not at the stage of quashing.
On the victim affidavits, the Government Advocate pointed out that the statements of the victim girls had already been recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. He also submitted that all victims had knowledge of English and their statements were recorded in that language. On the absence of an NOC, the Government Advocate noted that the petitioners had applied for a No Objection Certificate from the jurisdictional police, which was rejected in May 2024. A writ petition challenging that rejection was pending. Despite this, the spa continued to operate when the search was conducted in November 2024 — without either an NOC from the police or a licence from the local body.
Whether Regular Police Can Act as Special Police Officer Under Section 13
Justice Vijayakumar examined G.O.Ms. 618 of 1987 and found it squarely applicable. The government order appointed every Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu as a Special Police Officer for the purposes of the ITP Act. The FIR disclosed that the Inspector of Police, AHTU, Madurai City, conducted the search along with a lady Special Sub Inspector and two lady Head-Constables. The court held that police officials having jurisdiction had conducted the search and rejected the petitioners' first ground entirely.
Section 15(2) and the Residential Versus Commercial Distinction
The court's most detailed reasoning addressed whether the Section 15(2) witness requirement applies to commercial premises. Justice Vijayakumar extracted both sub-sections of Section 15. Section 15(1) permits a warrantless search where the Special Police Officer has reasonable grounds to believe an offence under the ITP Act is being committed “in respect of a person living in any premises” and that obtaining a warrant would cause undue delay. Section 15(2) then requires the officer to call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality (at least one of whom must be a woman) to witness the search before it commences.
The court read the two sub-sections together. Section 15(1) is explicitly addressed to premises where a person is living. Since Section 15(2) applies only when a search is being conducted under Section 15(1), and Section 15(1) is confined to residential premises, the witness requirement under Section 15(2) is similarly confined. A commercial establishment like a spa does not fall within the phrase “a person living in any premises.”
This reading was supported by three prior Madras High Court decisions. The judgment in (2015) 1 CTC 702 (S. Rangaraj and others v. Commissioner of Police, Chennai City) set out the four conditions that a Special Police Officer must satisfy before a warrantless search — all of which are framed by reference to the belief that an offence is being committed in respect of a person living in the premises. The Hema Jwaalini decision (2022 SCC Online Mad 1960) stated directly that the nature of the place under search has an impact on Section 15(2) compliance, and that the safeguard comes into play for residential places but not commercial ones. The Balaji judgment of 2024 reached the same conclusion.
Justice Vijayakumar added a purposive dimension. The object of Section 15(2) is to protect the privacy of victims and to prevent searches of residential premises from bringing disrepute to the inhabitants of a locality. The provision is not designed to protect accused persons who are found to be procuring victims or running a brothel. Giving the provision a purposive reading, he held that accused persons cannot use an alleged breach of Section 15(2) to obtain quashing of an FIR or charge sheet.
Whether Non-Compliance With Section 15(2) Can Ground a Quash Petition
The court examined the Supreme Court's ruling in Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat, 1969 (1) SCC 43. That judgment, though issued in the context of conviction and sentence, held that the legislature provided the safeguards in Sections 15(1) and 15(2) because of the sensitive nature of the premises involved and the handling of delicate situations concerning women. It nevertheless held that non-observance or non-compliance with those provisions does not render the entire proceedings and trial illegal and vitiated. The court noted that “unless and until some prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused person or persons the conviction and the sentence cannot be set aside.”
Justice Vijayakumar drew two conclusions from Bai Radha. Any prejudice caused by non-observance of Section 15(2) must be established, and that can only happen at trial. It cannot be decided at the quash stage. The prior judgments cited by the petitioners, including the Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini line of decisions, had not been given the benefit of Bai Radha being placed before them. The court declined to follow those decisions on that ground.
Post-FIR Victim Affidavits
The court rejected the affidavits of the five rescued victim girls as a basis for quashing. It noted that the jurisdictional Magistrate had already recorded the statements of the victim girls under Section 164 CrPC. The affidavits now annexed to the quash petitions, which alleged coercion and signature on documents in an unknown language, were described as “stereotyped” and found to be a matter for trial. They could not be used to disbelieve the prosecution's case at the threshold stage of a quash petition.
Spa Operated Without NOC or Licence
An additional consideration weighed against the petitioners. Rule 299 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, which came into force on 12 April 2023, requires a licence to run a spa. Rule 299(6) mandates a No Objection Certificate from the Commissioner of Police having jurisdiction before any licence is granted. The petitioners' application for an NOC had been rejected in May 2024. A writ petition against that rejection was pending. The spa was nevertheless in operation in November 2024 when the search was conducted — without either a valid NOC or a licence. The court observed that the prior judgments on which the petitioners relied involved spas that had obtained proper licences; those decisions could not assist the petitioners here.
Outcome
Justice R. Vijayakumar dismissed both Criminal Original Petitions — Crl.OP(MD) No. 21999 of 2024 and Crl.OP(MD) No. 573 of 2025 — finding no merit in either. The connected miscellaneous petitions, Crl.MP(MD) Nos. 13641 of 2024 and 371 of 2025, were closed as a consequence. The FIR in Crime No. 708 of 2024 registered at the Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai City, under the ITP Act will proceed.