Decided on March 16,2017

Mr. Savio R. Dsouza Appellant
The Police Inspector And Others Respondents


Nutan D. Sardessai, J. - (1.) Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. Shri M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) Shri K. Kerkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there was no material prima facie on record to continue the proceedings against the petitioner and therefore, it was a fit case to quash the FIR and the Chargesheet filed against him before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, North Goa, Mapusa. Shri M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents conceded in fairness that barring the information initially received which led to the raid, there was prima facie no material on record to even remotely connect the petitioner with the crime and therefore, relented that it was a fit case to quash the chargesheet against the petitioner.
(3.) The petitioner carved a case briefly that the respondent No. 1 acting on the basis of the reliable information had on 9.8.2014 conducted a raid on the massage parlour run under the name and style as "Venus and Mars Salon-Spa Body Care" located on the first floor, Morod Mapusa on the premise that the girls engaged therein were carrying on prostitution in the spa by way of cross massage. Besides the owner cum manager of the spa alongwith one Raj, Abishek and Savio were earning money out of prostitution. A raid was accordingly conducted after a decoy customer was sent in to lay a trap to book a case under the provisions of Immortal Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ("ITP Act" for short) and thereafter several persons were placed under arrest. The case of the petitioner was that the respondent No. 1 had carried out a biased investigation and filed a chargesheet against him and arraigned him as the accused No. 8 in the said case without prima facie evidence to justify his involvement in the Crime. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 of ITP Act and Section 370 IPC and issued summons to him. The said offence was not at all attracted and besides the petitioner was not named in the FIR as an accused and was subsequently added as an accused with a view to foist a false case against him.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.