The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that where it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action. The Court observed that continuation of the criminal proceedings based on such a basis would amount to subjecting a woman to the very harassment against which the Supreme Court had issued specific directions.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The petitioner submitted that she was neither present nor residing at Hotel Hayat, Raipur, when the police conducted the alleged raid and that she was subsequently called to the police station and falsely implicated.

The petitioner contended that the registration of the FIR, her arrest and filing of the charge-sheet are contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for protecting the rights and dignity of adult consenting sex workers.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Budhadev Karmaskar Vs. State of West Bengal & Others [Criminal Appeal No. 135/2010], wherein directions were issued that sex workers are entitled to equal protection of law and that criminal law must apply equally on the basis of age and consent.

It further noted the Supreme Court's direction that since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running the brothel is unlawful, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested, penalised, harassed or victimised.

“… where it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed that whenever there is a raid on any brothel… the sex workers concerned should not be arrested, penalised, harassed or victimized,” the Court noted.

The Court observed that in the present case, the allegations against the petitioner were essentially that she was a sex worker and was found in connection with the alleged activities at Hotel Hayat. The petitioner had specifically disputed her presence at the place of occurrence.

The Court noted that the material placed on record did not disclose any specific allegation demonstrating that she was engaged in any independent act which would constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged against her, apart from the allegation regarding her status as a sex worker.

The Court observed that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to subjecting an adult woman to the very harassment and victimisation against which the Supreme Court had issued specific directions.

The Court accordingly allowed the petition and quashed the criminal case against the petitioner.

Case Title: Xyz Nill v. State of Chhattisgarh [CRMP No. 1613 of 2023]

Click Here To Read/Download Order

The Supreme Court has stayed the proceedings before the Special Court (Srinagar) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against Tariq Ahmad Ganaie, after the petitioner raised the lack of prior sanction as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The provision mandates prior sanction to prosecute a public servant.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale passed the orders.

The petitioner is a public servant against whom an FIR was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau under Sections 5(1)(d), 5(1)(e), and 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (which correspond to Sections 13(1), 13(1)(e), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). The offences under these provisions fall under the purview of the PMLA, and were investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Evidence was placed on record before the Special Court, Srinagar, which passed orders taking cognisance offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, despite the absence of the mandatory sanction. Therefore, a petition was filed before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, seeking quashing of the Special Court's orders. The High Court, however, dismissed the plea, holding that the issue could be settled by reconsideration by the Trial Court in exercise of its powers under Section 403 BNSS.

Aggrieved by the High Court's order, an SLP was filed before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has ordered to stay the proceedings against the petitioner. “There shall be an order of stay on the proceedings pending before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court for PMLA Cases, at Srinagar,” it ordered.

Case: Tariq Ahmad Ganaie v Directorate of Enforcement (Diary No 37681/2026)

Coram: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale

Appearance:

For Petitioner: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Salhi Peerzada, Adv. Mr. Mir Adnaan Zahoor, Adv. Mr. Vivek Rajan, Adv. Ms. Nazarat Fatima, Adv.