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.

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 out prostitution by way of cross massage. hey are earning money out of prostitution and that apart from giving regular massage, special/extra/hand massage which are the terms usually used for prostitution are given to the customers by the girls employed in the said Spa on payment of extra money. On instructions from superior officers, the Complainant decided to lay a trap under the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. A decoy customer was arranged and given cash of Rs.2,000/- (four notes of Rs.500/-), serial numbers of which were noted down.

(iii) hereafter, the Complainant along with the raiding party reached Mapusa. he decoy customer along with the currency notes went to the Spa whereas the Complainant along with the raiding party waited on the ground floor of the building. After ten to fifteen minutes, pre-decided signal was given by the decoy customer, acting on which the raiding party entered the Spa. hey noticed one male person sitting at the table counter who disclosed his name as Mahendra Salgaonkar (the Petitioner). He also disclosed that he was running the said Spa. On taking search, it was seen that there were two small rooms with partitions. In one room, a female was seen with the decoy customer whereas, in the other room, another customer was waiting for massage.

(iv) he Petitioner, upon being asked, disclosed that there was one more shop on the same floor where there were four small rooms having cot with bed in which customers with females were in each room. he raiding party went to the said shop and found that all four customers were without clothes. he four victims were rescued. he victim giving massage/full body massage to the decoy customer was searched by lady constable and cash of Rs.500/- was recovered from her. he note numbers were tallied to find that it was the same note which was given by the decoy customer to her in return for extra massage. he complaint further records that in the same room a packet of condoms was also found. Further, search of the counter table revealed cash of Rs.4,800/-. three notes of Rs.500/- which were tallying with the serial numbers of the notes given to the decoy customer, were found in the cash box at the counter table.

(v) he personal search of the Petitioner and the other customers was taken. he recovere