Sex-for-Cash scam : High Court seeks affidavit from Punjab govt and DGP

Sharma presented a three-pronged submission. First, he stated that the petition placed on record two audio recordings. In one, a male voice—purportedly that of a publicly profiled IPS officer—is heard negotiating paid sex, requesting a threesome, and bargaining over the price with a woman arranging for another. In the second, the same voice tells a woman, who says she is changing out of uniform, to send explicit photographs to a group chat.

Second, Sharma submitted that the recordings intersect with an ongoing NDPS case involving a woman constable who allegedly invoked the name of an IPS officer during her arrest and was found in possession of heroin and unaccounted luxury assets.

Third, he argued that the matter fits into a broader pattern of institutional failure. Citing past judicial pronouncements, Sharma referred to repeated delays in investigations, inaction against senior officers, and signs of collusion between law enforcement and criminal networks.

In response to questions from the Bench on whether appropriate remedies were pursued before approaching the Court, the Bench was informed that Saraf had submitted complaints to multiple statutory authorities. He said the Chief Minister’s Office had forwarded the complaint to the Home Department, which failed to act. The Police Complaints Authority rejected the complaint on a narrow technical ground. The Punjab State Women’s Commission did not respond, despite having powers under Section 10 of the Punjab State Women Commission Act to act suo motu.

Sharma also highlighted that a Judicial Magistrate had issued an ex parte gag order suppressing the recordings without notice, hearing, or forensic verification. That order, State counsel intervened, has since been stayed by the High Court.

When the State of Punjab raised objections on the grounds of locus standi and maintainability—arguing that the petitioner should have approached a Magistrate to seek FIR registration—Sharma responded that under the new provisions of Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, a Magistrate would first need to seek a report from the accused officer’s employer and provide the officer an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance. This, he argued, would shield public officials and make access to justice difficult.

When asked by the Bench about the basis of his statements in the petition, Sharma read from High Court orders annexed to the plea. These included one where the same officer was fined one lakh rupees for delaying a criminal case for over two years; another where the Court intervened 12 years later to secure FIR registration in a rape and murder case; and an order issuing statewide directions to curb prostitution and trafficking. He also cited a case where the Court had directed action against senior officers who facilitated a jail interview for an accused, noting that no action had been taken and no affidavit filed despite specific instructions from the Court.

After hearing the submissions, the Division Bench directed the State of Punjab to file an affidavit in response. The issue of locus standi will be addressed thereafter. The matter has been adjourned to July 17, 2025.