Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
ASHISH S.CHAVAN
Mahendra Salgaonkar S/o Shri Pradeep Salgaonkar – Appellant
Versus
State, through Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Panaji – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.
1. By way of the present Petition, the Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash and set aside an order dated 17.01.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Goa, inter alia 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 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. he brief chronology of events necessary to appreciate the factual matrix in the background is as follows:
(i) A written complaint was filed by PI Neenad Deulkar, the Complainant, then attached to the CID Crime Branch, Ribandar, Goa, on 09.08.2014 on behalf of the State against the Petitioner and other persons. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR bearing No.47/2014, dated 09.08.2014 was registered by North Goa CID.
(ii) he complaint narrates that on 09.08.2014, at about 16.00 hrs., the Complainant received information from reliable source that the Petitioner, along with three other persons, are running a massage parlour under the name and style of Venus and Mars Salon-Spa-Body Care in a building on the first floor at Mapusa and has employed girls who are carrying
At charge framing stage, prima facie material from decoy raid, marked currency recoveries, and scene details suffices to proceed under trafficking provisions despite victim denials of coercion.
Customers cannot be prosecuted under trafficking laws without evidence of knowledge regarding the exploitation of individuals involved.
Sexual exploitation – In absence of any evidence likely to come on record, securing conviction against accused is impossible and case can be quashed.
The act of visiting a sex worker as a customer does not constitute an offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, according to established legal precedents.
A customer who pays for procuring a girl for prostitution can be charged under sections 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Customers cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act without evidence of trafficking, but may be liable under Section 370(A)(2) IPC if they had reason to believe victims were tra....
The absence of evidence proving that victims were trafficked or exploited negates the applicability of Section 370(A)(2) IPC against customers.
A customer at a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act without evidence of involvement in procuring prostitution.
The prosecution must provide credible and primary evidence to support charges under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and the Goa Children's Act, particularly when serious allegations such as chil....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
