The Bombay High Court at Goa has refused to quash trafficking and immoral traffic charges against a Mapusa spa owner in a 2014 prostitution raid case. [Mahesh Salgaonkar v. State of Goa & Anr.]
In a judgment delievered on March 9, Justice Ashish Chavan dismissed the plea filed by Mahendra Salgaonkar, the proprietor of “Venus and Mars Salon-Spa-Body Care at Mapusa.
Salgaonkar had challenged a January 2024 order of the North Goa Sessions Court directing that charges be framed against him under sections 370 and 370A(2) of the Indian Penal Code (trafficking of persons) and provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The case stemmed from an August 2014 raid carried out by the Crime Branch of Ribandar based on specific information that prostitution was being conducted under the guise of massage services at the first-floor spa.
Police used a decoy customer with marked currency after a tip-off to investigate a spa where staff allegedly offered 'cross massage' or 'special/extra hand massage' for additional fees.
The decoy claimed the owner-cum-manager, Salgaonkar, charged ₹1,500 for a massage and accepted the marked money. Inside, a female masseuse allegedly agreed to an "extra/special" massage for an additional ₹500, also paid with marked money.
During the raid, police recovered ₹500 from the masseuse and ₹1,500 from the counter, matching pre-recorded serial numbers. A packet of condoms was also seized, and four nude customers and four "rescued" victims were found in adjoining rooms.
Salgaonkar argued that charges of trafficking or prostitution were not supported by the victims' statements; the statements only mentioned salaries and massage commissions and explicitly denied any sexual exploitation.
He also requested that his client be treated at par with the co-accused. The charges against three co-accused had been quashed by the High Court and it had also dismissed charges against six customers.
Justice Chavan rejected the contention that the victims' lack of explicit reference to prostitution barred framing of charge.
The Court found prima facie material in the complaint, decoy's version and panchnama all of which suggested extra money was accepted for 'extra/special hand massage'. It also took note of the condoms present in a public spa.
The judge clarified that whether this conduct amounts to “sexual exploitation” would be decided during trial.
The Court distinguished Salgaonkar from the discharged co-accused who were either customers or had no attributed role.
It stressed that Salgaonkar was the licence-holder and alleged manager who took the main payment from the decoy and supplied women for the massage.
Therefore, the High Court dismissed Salgaonkar’s petition and permitted the trial court to frame charges.
Senior advocate CA Ferreira with advocates S Kamulkar, Rakesh Naik and N Govekar appeared for Salgaonkar.
Additional public prosecutor S Karpe with advocate S Vaigankar appeared for the State of Goa.
[Read Order]