Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mahendra Salgaonkar, filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking to quash an order dated 17.01.2024 by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, directing framing of charges against him for offences under Sections 370 and 370-A(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The case originated from an FIR registered on 09.08.2014 based on a complaint by police alleging that the petitioner was running a massage parlour where prostitution activities were conducted through cross massages by employed girls. A trap was laid using a decoy customer, leading to a raid where marked currency notes were recovered from a victim girl and the petitioner's cash counter. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed naming nine accused, with the petitioner as Accused No. 1. Previously, the High Court had quashed the charge-sheet against Accused Nos. 7, 8, and 9 in 2017 and quashed the framing of charges against Accused Nos. 2 to 6 in 2024, holding they were customers and thus not liable under the relevant acts. The legal issues centered on whether sufficient prima facie evidence existed to frame charges and whether the principle of parity with discharged co-accused applied. The petitioner argued that no material indicated exploitation or prostitution, citing victim statements showing no forced sexual activity and lack of CCTV evidence, and relied on precedents including State of Bihar v. Jagrup Singh and Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand. The State contended that the complaint, decoy statement, and scene panchanama provided adequate material for trial, referencing State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap. The court analyzed the record, noting that victim statements were stereotypical, indicating fixed salaries and commissions without allegations of forced exploitation, and juxtaposed this with the decoy's account of extra payment for special massage. It interpreted Section 370 IPC, emphasizing that exploitation is inclusively defined but requires evidence of threats, force, or inducement. The court found prima facie case, as the evidence did establish trafficking or prostitution offences, and applied parity due to similar roles with co-accused whose charges were quashed. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and decliend to quash the order framing charges and discharging the petitioner.
Headnote
Criminal Law-- Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 370, 370-A(2)- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956-- Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 -- Petitioner along with three other persons were running a massage parlour-- Information that the massage parlour carrying out prostitution activities also-- Decoy customer arranged- Trap-- Complaint registered-- Investigation-- Submission of final report-- Petitioner shown as accused no.1-- Co-accused discharged-- Order of framing of charge passed against the petitioner-- Petitioner was found at the scene of offence as he was seated at the table counter--Activities were carried out was a public place-- Scene of panchanama corroborated to the version of complainant and statement of decoy customer-- Prima facie material to show that one of the victim girls had accepted an additional amount over and above the amount taken by the petitioner for massage-- Expression of "Exploitation"-- Consent of victim is immaterial in determining the offence of trafficking-- Prima facie materials against the petitioner-- No role attributed to discharged co-accused-- No parity available to the petitioner-- Case of P. VIjayan (Supra) referred-- Prima facie material in the complaint and the accompanying charge sheet to frame the charge against the petitioner-- Petition Dismissed Para-- 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the order directing framing of charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 370, 370-A(2) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is sustainable based on the material on record and whether parity with co-accused applies
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 17.01.2024 directing framing of charges against the petitioner, and discharged the petitioner
