Observing that a constitutional democracy must protect children from exploitation while also preventing the misuse of criminal law against innocent people, the Calcutta High Court has refused to quash a case against a married couple accused of making a 15-year-old girl work as a domestic help, saying it could not decide at this stage whether she was being exploited or had simply been given shelter.
“The administration of criminal jurisprudence within a constitutional democracy requires a very careful and balanced approach. On one hand, the courts have a duty to protect vulnerable people, especially children and minors, from exploitation, abuse, and illegal treatment, while on the other hand, higher courts also have an equally important duty to protect innocent individuals from false, unnecessary, or harassing criminal cases that misuse the legal process,” the court said on August 28.
The case pertains to the rescue of a minor by a Childline team from a flat on November 30, 2022. The records indicate that information about the girl was received through a child helpline number two days before the incident. The prosecution alleged that she was being kept inside the flat and made to look after the couple’s children and perform heavy household chores for a monthly payment of Rs 1,500, besides food and accommodation.
Minor ‘rescued’ from couple’s flat
The flat belonged to the man who worked in a private company, while his wife was a government employee. The couple had two children. According to the order, the Childline team acted on the information received and found the 15-year-old girl inside the flat. A written complaint was then lodged.
The police registered an FIR and investigated the allegations. Witnesses were examined, while the minor’s statement was recorded before a judicial magistrate. After the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the couple on December 9, 2022, under sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The couple then approached the high court seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings.
‘Girl given shelter’
The petitioners denied that the girl had been employed as a domestic worker or labourer. Their counsel argued that there was no employment agreement and the girl had been facing serious family difficulties and had nowhere to go.
Story continues below this ad
According to the defence, the couple had provided her food, shelter and accommodation out of kindness and charity. Any money given to her, they argued, was voluntary assistance and not wages or a monthly salary.
They also contended that any household work performed by the girl was out of gratitude and affection and did not amount to forced labour. The petitioners further argued that the ingredients of Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act were absent, including allegations of wilful neglect, abandonment, physical assault or mental abuse.
Their counsel relied on the Kerala High Court’s 2017 decision in A Nizamuddin vs Station House Officer, arguing that employing a child for domestic work would not attract Section 75 unless there was bondage or actual physical or mental cruelty.
State points to conflicting statements
Opposing the plea, the state argued that it was premature and lacked merit. According to the state’s submissions, the minor’s initial statement referred to domestic work, confinement and payment. However, her later statement before a magistrate contained a modified version.
Story continues below this ad
The state argued that the conflicting statements raised factual questions which could not be resolved by the high court at the stage of considering a plea. Relying on the Supreme Court’s principles in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, the state submitted that the high court could not conduct a mini-trial or assess the credibility of competing versions at this preliminary stage.
‘Charity’ versus child labour
Holding that the conflicting versions were central to the case, the court noted that the case diary contained material, including the initial statement and the circumstances in which the girl was recovered, pointing towards the prosecution’s version that household work was being taken from her in exchange for promised payment, food and accommodation.
The defence, however, relied on the later statement to maintain that the girl had come to the couple seeking shelter because of family distress and that her stay was voluntary and charitable.
The court said the question of whether the arrangement amounted to “charity” or “illegal child labour” was heavily disputed and could not be decided at this stage. It said that the Kerala High Court’s Nizamuddin ruling could not be applied as a blanket shield at the pre-trial stage when the facts concerning cruelty, bondage or exploitation remained disputed.
Story continues below this ad
The high court reiterated that its power to quash criminal proceedings at the threshold must be exercised cautiously and sparingly. It said that where the case diary contains material disclosing a cognisable offence, the prosecution should not ordinarily be stopped at its inception.
The judge said the petitioners’ defence could not simply be accepted at this stage. “Defence arguments, no matter how convincing they look right now, cannot be tested, weighed, or accepted by this Court under Section 482,” it said.
It further held that assessing the reliability of the statements, resolving the contradictions between the earlier and later versions, examining the circumstances inside the house and determining whether the case involved child labour or genuine humanitarian assistance were matters for the trial court to ascertain.
The high court ultimately found no merit in the criminal revision petition and dismissed the plea. Any interim stay granted earlier was vacated, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and strictly in accordance with the law.
