Spa Owner Who Personally Received Marked Currency And Promised 'Nice Females With Closed Door Rooms' Cannot Escape Trafficking Charges: Bombay High Court

"The Consent of the Victim Is Immaterial In Determining the Offence of Trafficking", Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the owner-cum-manager of a spa at Mapusa, Goa, seeking to quash an order directing framing of charges against him for human trafficking and immoral trafficking offences — holding that the decoy customer's statement, recovery of marked currency from the cash counter in his possession, and the discovery of condoms in the massage room constituted sufficient prima facie material to proceed to trial.

Justice Ashish S. Chavan, rejecting the petitioner's attempt to invoke parity with discharged co-accused, held that the spa owner stood on an entirely different footing from mere customers and that the nature of the "extra/special/hand massage" was a matter to be determined upon evidence at trial — not at the stage of framing of charge.

A police trap operation was conducted at the Venus and Mars Salon-Spa-Body Care at Mapusa, Goa, on 09.08.2014 by the CID Crime Branch, Ribandar, based on specific intelligence that girls employed at the Spa were providing sexual services under the guise of cross massage. A decoy customer was provided Rs.2,000/- in marked currency. He visited the Spa, paid Rs.1,500/- to the petitioner at the counter, was provided a female masseur in a closed-door room, and subsequently paid Rs.500/- from the marked notes to the victim girl for "extra/special massage." During the raid, Rs.500/- was recovered from the victim's personal search and Rs.1,500/- from the cash counter held by the petitioner. Nine accused were charge-sheeted; the co-accused customers and others were subsequently discharged, leaving the petitioner as the sole surviving accused. The Sessions Judge, North Goa, directed framing of charges in January 2024, which the petitioner challenged before the High Court.

Whether the material on record was sufficient to frame charges under Sections 370 and 370-A(2) IPC and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; whether the victim girls' statements denying exploitation negated the charge; and whether the principle of parity with discharged co-accused entitled the petitioner to discharge.

Court's Observations and Judgment

The Court first examined the statement of the decoy customer, which it found to be the most incriminating piece of evidence against the petitioner. The decoy customer had stated that when he entered the Spa, the petitioner was personally seated at the counter, informed him that "nice females will be provided for massage with closed door rooms," quoted the massage rate of Rs.1,500/-, collected the marked currency, and personally arranged a victim girl for the decoy customer.

"The Petitioner informed the decoy customer that the massage will cost him Rs.1,500/- and that nice females will be provided for massage with closed door rooms — he paid the marked currency of Rs.1,500/- to the Petitioner."

The Court then addressed the petitioner's principal submission that the victim girls' statements — which denied forced exploitation and described themselves as salaried employees providing only regular massage — negated any case under the ITPA or Section 370 IPC. The Court characterised these statements as "more or less stereotypical in nature" and held that they could not be read in isolation. When juxtaposed with the complaint, the decoy customer's statement, and the scene of offence panchanama — all of which recorded that one victim accepted Rs.500/- for extra/special/hand massage, that the marked note was recovered from her personal search, and that a packet of condoms was recovered from the same room — prima facie material clearly emerged.

"What was the nature of this extra/special/hand massage can be determined only when evidence is led during trial."

On the legal definition of "exploitation" under Section 370 IPC, the Court held that the Explanation to Section 370 defines exploitation in an inclusive, not exhaustive, manner — covering "any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs." Whether any specific act falls within this definition depends entirely on the facts of each case. Crucially, the Court reiterated that the Second Explanation to Section 370 renders the consent of the victim entirely immaterial in determining whether the offence of trafficking is made out.

"The definition of the expression 'exploitation' is not an exhaustive definition but an inclusive one — thus, whether a particular act would come under the definition of the expression 'exploitation' would depend upon the facts of each case."

The petitioner's most forceful argument was the invocation of parity. He pointed out that this very Court had in 2017 quashed the chargesheet against Accused Nos.7, 8 and 9, and in July 2024 had quashed the framing of charge against Accused Nos.2 to 6 on the ground that they were merely customers of the Spa. The Court firmly rejected this argument by distinguishing the basis on which the co-accused had been discharged. Accused Nos.7, 8 and 9 were discharged because no role was attributed to them anywhere in the complaint or chargesheet. Accused Nos.2 to 6 were discharged because they were plainly customers — with no active role in managing, facilitating or profiting from the alleged activities. The petitioner, by contrast, was the licensee, owner, and manager who personally sat at the counter, personally received the marked currency, personally made assurances about female masseurs in closed-door rooms, and personally disbursed the victim girl to the decoy customer.

"The Petitioner, being the licensee and owner-cum-manager who personally received payment and facilitated the alleged prostitution, stands on an entirely different footing — the principle of parity cannot be invoked in his favour."

On the standard applicable at the charge stage, the Court reiterated the well-settled Supreme Court position that a court is only required to sift the material to see whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed — it must assume the prosecution material to be true and assess whether the ingredients of the offence are prima facie disclosed. Weighing the pros and cons of evidence is the function reserved for trial, not for the court at the stage of considering a discharge application.

Finding no infirmity in the impugned order of the Sessions Judge, the Court upheld it in its entirety.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule, confirming that the criminal proceedings before the trial court for offences under Sections 370 and 370-A(2) IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 shall continue against the petitioner. The judgment underscores that a spa owner who personally receives payment, personally promises female masseurs in closed-door rooms, and from whose cash counter marked currency is recovered after a police trap cannot shelter behind the stereotypical denials of victims or the discharge of customers who played no active role in running the establishment.

Date of Decision: 09 March 2026