Facts
The Petitioner, Mahendra Salgaonkar, was the owner-cum-manager of "Venus and Mars Salon-Spa-Body Care" in Mapusa, Goa
Source reference: p. 2, 7Following a tip-off on August 9, 2014, the CID Crime Branch conducted a trap using a decoy customer
Source reference: p. 2The 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
Source reference: p. 3, 7-8Upon 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
Source reference: p. 3-4The police rescued four victims and filed a charge-sheet against nine accused
Source reference: p. 4-5By 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)
Source reference: p. 1-2The Petitioner approached the High Court to quash this order
Source reference: p. 1Issues
1. Whether there exists sufficient prima facie material to frame charges against the Petitioner for human trafficking and immoral trafficking offenses
Source reference: p. 5, 122. Whether the statements of the victim girls, which do not explicitly allege forced sexual exploitation, entitle the Petitioner to discharge
Source reference: p. 8-9Law Applied
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
Source reference: p. 9Sections 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
Source reference: p. 2P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2010), which established that the judge must only find if there is "sufficient ground for proceeding"
Source reference: p. 11-12State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021), which mandates that at the stage of framing charges, prosecution material must be assumed true
Source reference: p. 12Reasoning
The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the victims’ stereotypical statements—claiming fixed salaries and voluntary work—negated the offenses
Source reference: p. 8-9It reasoned that under Section 370 IPC, the consent of the victim is legally irrelevant
Source reference: p. 9The 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
Source reference: p. 7-8, 10The 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
Source reference: p. 11The 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
Source reference: p. 12Holding
The High Court dismissed the Petition and discharged the rule, upholding the Sessions Judge's order to frame charges
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
Source reference: p. 12-13Original Court PDF
MAHENDRA SALGAONKARvsSTATE OF GOA, THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR CRIME BRANCH, RIBANDAR P.S. AND ANR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in