Spa Prostitution Case: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Case Under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act

The High Court was considering a petition seeking quashing and setting aside an order directing charges to be framed against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 370, 370-A(2) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The Single Bench of Justice Ashish S. Chavan held, “The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the complaint, the statement of the decoy customer and the scene of offence panchanama to observe that there is prima facie material to proceed to frame charge against the Petitioner for the offences alleged.”

Senior Advocate C. A. Ferreira represented the Petitioner while Addl. Public Prosecutor S. Karpe represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A written complaint was filed by PI Neenad Deulkar, the complainant, then attached to the CID Crime Branch, Ribandar, Goa, on behalf of the State against the Petitioner and other persons. It was mentioned in the complaint that the complainant received information from a reliable source that the Petitioner, along with three other persons, was running a massage parlour under the name and style of Venus and Mars Salon-Spa-Body Care and had employed girls who were carrying out prostitution. A trap was laid, and a decoy customer was arranged who was given Rs 2,000 cash. The decoy customer went to the Spa.

A pre-decided signal was given by the decoy customer, acting on which the raiding party entered the Spa. The Petitioner, upon being asked, disclosed that there was another shop on the same floor with four small rooms. The raiding party went to the said shop and found all four customers without clothes. The four victims were rescued. The victim, giving massage/full body massage to the decoy customer, was searched by lady constable and cash of Rs 500 was recovered from her. The note numbers were tallied to indicate that it was the same note which was given by the decoy customer to her in return for an extra massage. After registration of the FIR, the police commenced investigation, the statements of the victim girls were recorded, and they were produced before SDM, Mapusa, to pass an order under Section 70(3) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

Reasoning

Referring to the statements of the victim girls, the Bench noted that there was no specific allegation of forced sexual exploitation, prostitution or trafficking. However, when juxtaposed with the statements of the Complainant and the decoy customer, the Bench noticed there was 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 a massage. This additional amount was accepted by the victim girl after she agreed to an extra massage.

“Section 370 of the IPC, which deals with the ofence of traicking, makes it an ofence to recruit, transport, harbour, transfer or receive a person by using threats or force or any other form of coercion or by abduction or by practising fraud/ deception or by abuse of power or by inducements”, it stated.

Thus, finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Mahendra Salgaonkar v. State (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:419)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate C. A. Ferreira, Advocates S. Kamulkar, Rakesh Naik, N. Govekar

Respondent: Addl. Public Prosecutor S. Karpe, Advocate S. Vaigankar

Click here to read/download Order