Managerial facilitation of sexual services in a spa justifies framing human trafficking and immoral traffic charges.

The Petitioner, Mahendra Salgaonkar, was the owner-cum-manager of "Venus and Mars Salon-Spa-Body Care" in Mapusa, Goa

Following a tip-off on August 9, 2014, the CID Crime Branch conducted a trap using a decoy customer

The decoy customer paid the Petitioner Rs. 1,500 for a massage and subsequently paid a female victim Rs. 500 for a "special/extra/hand massage," terms allegedly synonymous with prostitution

Upon a signal from the decoy, the raiding party entered the premises, recovered the marked currency notes from the Petitioner’s cash counter and the victim, and found condoms in the room

The police rescued four victims and filed a charge-sheet against nine accused

By an order dated January 17, 2024, the Sessions Judge directed the framing of charges against the Petitioner under Sections 370, 370-A(2) of the IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA)

The Petitioner approached the High Court to quash this order

Section 370 of the IPC, which defines trafficking and includes "sexual exploitation" within the definition of "exploitation," clarifying via Explanation 2 that the consent of the victim is immaterial

Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, relating to the operation of a brothel and living on the earnings of prostitution

P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2010), which established that the judge must only find if there is "sufficient ground for proceeding"

State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021), which mandates that at the stage of framing charges, prosecution material must be assumed true

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the victims’ stereotypical statements—claiming fixed salaries and voluntary work—negated the offenses

It reasoned that under Section 370 IPC, the consent of the victim is legally irrelevant

The Court found that the statement of the decoy customer, the recovery of marked currency notes (matching serial numbers) from both the Petitioner and a victim, and the presence of condoms provided sufficient prima facie evidence of a prostitution racket being run under the guise of a spa

The Court distinguished the Petitioner’s case from that of the co-accused (customers) whose charges were previously quashed, noting that the Petitioner was the manager and licensee of the premises

The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, it cannot conduct a "mini-trial" or enter into the pros and cons of the evidence, but must only determine if a case for trial is made out

The Court held that there is sufficient material in the charge-sheet, specifically the decoy customer's statement and the seizure panchanama, to proceed with the trial against the Petitioner for offenses under the IPC and ITPA