The Bench held that the petitioner's alleged status could not be considered in isolation from the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court.The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 against an adult woman, holding that the material on record did not disclose any specific act attributable to her that satisfied the ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Act.A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that continuation of the proceedings, in the circumstances of the case, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court also took into account the Supreme Court's directions in Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal concerning the protection of adult consenting sex workers from arrest, harassment and victimisation.The Court observed:“The directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Budhadev Karmaskar (supra) are required to be kept in view while examining the legality of continuation of criminal proceedings against an adult woman merely on account of her alleged involvement as a sex worker.”The Bench consequently quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner.Woman Allegedly Implicated After Police Raid At HotelThe prosecution case arose from a police raid at Hotel Hayat, Raipur.The petitioner, however, disputed her presence at the hotel at the time of the alleged raid. Her case was that she was neither residing at nor present in the hotel when the police conducted the raid. According to the petitioner, she was subsequently called to the police station and falsely implicated in the case. She was arrested and later released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur.She further alleged that the police had assured her that no charge-sheet would be filed against her, but a charge-sheet was subsequently submitted.The resulting Criminal Case No. 4121/2023 was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur when she approached the High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 493/2022 registered at Telibandha Police Station, Raipur, for offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.The petitioner relied heavily upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal and the directions issued by the Court on 19.05.2022.The Supreme Court had held:“Sex workers are entitled to equal protection of the law.”It further directed:“Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of ‘age’ and ‘consent’.”The Supreme Court had also specifically addressed police action against sex workers, observing:“Whenever there is a raid on any brothel, since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running the brothel is unlawful, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested or victimize or harassed or victimized.”The Chhattisgarh High Court noted that these directions were issued by the Supreme Court while exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.The High Court examined the allegations and the material collected during the investigation. The Bench noted that the petitioner was an adult woman and that the prosecution material did not disclose any specific act committed by her which would independently constitute an offence under Sections 3, 4, 5 or 7 of the ITPA.The Court found that the allegation concerning the petitioner essentially rested upon her alleged status or involvement as a sex worker.The Bench observed:“The material placed on record does not disclose any specific allegation demonstrating that the petitioner 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.”This distinction was central to the Court's reasoning. The Court did not hold that the ITPA could never apply to a sex worker. Rather, it found that the prosecution must still disclose the ingredients of a specific offence against the particular accused. The alleged status of the petitioner could not, by itself, substitute for such material.The High Court noted that the Supreme Court's directions in Budhadev Karmaskar were directly relevant while examining the continuation of criminal proceedings against an adult woman alleged to be a sex worker.The Court also referred to the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Prajwala v. Union of India, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 574, where the protection against harassment and victimisation of voluntary sex workers during raids was reiterated.In light of these decisions, the Bench held that the petitioner's alleged status could not be considered in isolation from the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court.The Court also considered the procedural history of the case. When the petitioner's matter had earlier come before the High Court on 25.07.2023, the Bench had considered the allegations in light of Budhadev Karmaskar and found a strong prima facie case for staying further proceedings. The interim protection was thereafter continued.At the final stage, the Court found no substantial change in the factual or legal position that would justify taking a different view. The earlier assessment therefore remained relevant while considering whether the criminal prosecution should be permitted to continue.State Opposed Quashing, Said Evidence Should Be Tested At TrialThe State opposed the petition and submitted that the FIR had been registered on the basis of information concerning alleged offences under the ITPA. It was argued that the investigation had subsequently resulted in a charge-sheet and that questions concerning the petitioner's presence at the hotel and the evidentiary value of the material collected by the investigating agency were matters that should ordinarily be examined by the trial court.The prosecution therefore contended that the petitioner could raise her defence during trial and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should not be exercised to terminate the proceedings at that stage.The High Court, however, found that the material before it did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences against the petitioner and that the continuation of the prosecution would have to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's specific directions concerning adult consenting sex workers.Continuation Of Proceedings Would Amount To Abuse Of ProcessAfter considering the allegations, the investigation material, the petitioner's specific denial of being present at the hotel and the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court, the Bench concluded that there was no justification for allowing the prosecution to continue against her.The Court held that the material did not establish any independent act on the petitioner's part satisfying the offences with which she had been charged.The Bench accordingly concluded:“Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the facts of the present case, would serve no useful purpose and would amount to subjecting an adult woman to the very harassment and ictimization against which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued specific directions.”The Court therefore found the case fit for exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.The High Court accordingly allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 493/2022, registered at Telibandha Police Station, Raipur, for offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the ITPA. The consequential charge-sheet and Criminal Case No. 4121/2023, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, were also quashed insofar as the petitioner, arrayed as Accused No. 3, was concerned.The Court further directed that its interim order dated 25.07.2023 would stand merged with the final order.Case Details:Xyz Nill v. State of Chhattisgarh[CRMP No. 1613 of 2023]Date of Decision: 13.08.2026Appearance: For Petitioner(s): Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s): Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)