Court rules that raid by police without Special Police Officer notification and absence of woman witness during search vitiates prosecution, deeming continuation an abuse of process.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 12, 2026, the Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two accused persons under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act), emphasizing strict adherence to procedural mandates. The case arose from Crime No.506/2026 registered at Athani Police Station, Belagavi District, involving allegations of prostitution at Venkateshwara Lodge, Athani City.
The petitioners, Sri Rudrappa and another, challenged the legality of the raid conducted by a Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) and subsequent registration of the First Information Report (FIR). They contended that the PSI did not possess the statutory authority as a "Special Police Officer" under Section 13 read with Section 2(i) of the ITP Act, rendering the raid and investigation unauthorized.
The Court scrutinized the statutory framework governing the investigation of offences under the ITP Act. Section 13 mandates that only a "Special Police Officer," appointed by the State Government for a specified area and not below the rank of Inspector, can investigate such cases. The Court noted absence of any government notification appointing or designating the PSI or any officer in the investigating team as a Special Police Officer for the relevant area. Consequently, the raid and registration of FIR by the PSI were held to be without lawful authority.
Further, the Court highlighted non-compliance with Section 15(2) of the ITP Act, which requires that a raid must be conducted in the presence of a woman and a local respectable person as witnesses. The record revealed that the raiding party lacked a woman member, and there was no averment in the spot mahazar that none was available. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of this safeguard to protect the dignity and rights of women during search operations.
Relying on precedents including Dharmanna v. State of Karnataka (2023), Hanmanth v. State of Karnataka (2024), and Mr. Praveen Kumar M.S. v. State of Karnataka (2022), the Court reiterated that failure to comply with these procedural requirements vitiates the entire proceedings. It observed that allowing investigation and trial to proceed under such circumstances amounts to abuse of the process of law.
The Court thus allowed the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 482 CrPC), quashing the entire proceedings against the petitioners in the case registered under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the ITP Act. Pending interim applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's insistence on strict statutory compliance in sensitive cases involving the ITP Act and upholds procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary and unlawful investigations.
Bottom Line:
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Proceedings liable to be quashed where raid and registration of case were not by a duly notified Special Police Officer under Section 13 read with Section 2(i) of the Act - Non-compliance with mandatory requirement of associating a woman/local respectable person during search also vitiates prosecution.
Statutory provision(s): Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Sections 2(i), 3, 4, 5, 13, 15(2); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Sri Rudrappa v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3002544
