Case Note & Summary
Two writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of First Information Reports registered under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 3184 of 2016, the first informant, an Assistant Police Inspector of Koregaon Park Police Station, alleged that a brothel house was being run in a flat at Koregaon Park, Pune. On receiving information, a dummy customer was sent and after confirming the information, the police party entered and found a victim woman. She stated that one Ramdeo, employed by the petitioner Krishna Surendra Singh, had brought her from Delhi for prostitution. The search was conducted by the Assistant Police Inspector. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 2136 of 2016, the first informant, an Inspector of Police of the Special Branch, Pune, received information about prostitution in a flat at Koregaon Park. The Assistant Commissioner of Police directed the Senior Inspector of Police, Shri Mahajan, who was the Officer Incharge of Lashkar Police Station, to conduct the search. After sending a dummy customer, the police entered and found four women and two men. One of them, Mahendra, stated that he worked as a commission agent for the petitioner Ajay Patil and was paid 10% commission. Search was carried out by Senior Inspector Shri Mahajan. In both petitions, the petitioners contended that the search was not conducted by a Special Police Officer or Trafficking Police Officer as required under Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, and therefore the FIRs were illegal and liable to be quashed. The court examined Section 15, which mandates that a search without warrant can be made only by a Special Police Officer or Trafficking Police Officer. In the first petition, the search was conducted by an Assistant Police Inspector, who was neither. The court held that the search was in clear violation of Section 15 and consequently quashed the FIR. In the second petition, although the first informant was an Inspector of the Special Branch, the actual search was conducted by Senior Inspector Mahajan, who was the Officer Incharge of Lashkar Police Station. The court noted that under a government notification dated 14 March 2005, an Inspector in charge of a police station within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Police is a Special Police Officer for the purposes of the Act. Therefore, the search was valid and the petition was dismissed. The court also observed that in the second petition, a charge sheet had already been filed. Regarding anticipatory bail, which had been denied by the Sessions Court based on a misinterpretation of the decision in Freedom Firm vs. Commissioner of Police, the court clarified that the petitioner could apply afresh for pre-arrest bail. The court did not rule on the per incuriam submission concerning Freedom Firm. Ultimately, Criminal Writ Petition No. 3184 of 2016 was allowed and the FIR quashed, while Criminal Writ Petition No. 2136 of 2016 was dismissed with liberty to seek pre-arrest bail.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 - Search without warrant - Section 15 - Held that a search without warrant under Section 15 can be undertaken only by a Special Police Officer or Trafficking Police Officer; search conducted by an Assistant Police Inspector who is neither a Special Police Officer nor a Trafficking Police Officer is in clear violation of the statutory mandate, and the FIR based on such illegal search is liable to be quashed (Paras 7-8, 11). B) Criminal Law - Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 - Special Police Officer - Notification dated 14 March 2005 - Held that the Inspector in charge of a police station within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Police is a Special Police Officer for the purposes of the Act; therefore, a search conducted by such an officer is valid and the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of unauthorized search (Paras 8, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the search without warrant conducted by a police officer who is neither a Special Police Officer nor a Trafficking Police Officer under Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 renders the FIR and subsequent proceedings illegal and liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
Criminal Writ Petition No.3184 of 2016 allowed; the FIR registered under Sections 3,4,5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 quashed. Criminal Writ Petition No.2136 of 2016 dismissed; however, liberty granted to the petitioner to apply afresh for pre-arrest bail before the appropriate court.
Law Points
- Search without warrant under Section 15 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act
- 1956
- must be conducted only by Special Police Officer or Trafficking Police Officer
- non-compliance renders search illegal and FIR liable to be quashed
- Inspector in charge of a police station within Commissioner of Police jurisdiction is Special Police Officer under Government notification.
