Back
refuses to quash child labour case against couple claiming charity
The has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a married couple accused of keeping a 15-year-old girl as a domestic help, ruling that the conflicting statements given by the minor raised that must be resolved at trial. Justice Uday Kumar dismissed the couple's petition under , finding that the case diary contained sufficient material to prosecute under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act and the Juvenile Justice Act.
A Late-Night Rescue and a Tale of Two Statements
The case originated on , when a team from the NGO rescued a 15-year-old girl, Rahima Khatun, from Flat Number K/45-102 at Shapoorji Housing Complex around 9:25 PM. The flat belonged to the petitioners—a working couple with two children. Following the rescue, a complaint was lodged at alleging that the girl had been wrongfully confined and made to perform household chores, including babysitting, in exchange for a promised monthly payment of ₹1,500 along with food and accommodation.
The police registered an FIR and, after investigation, filed a chargesheet under Sections 342 (), 506 (), and 34 IPC, read with , and .
Charity vs. Exploitation: The Core Dispute
The couple, represented by , argued that there was no employment agreement and that the girl had come to them seeking shelter due to severe family problems. They claimed any money given was voluntary charity and that the girl's occasional help around the house was out of gratitude, not forced labour. Relying on the decision in , they contended that Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act requires proof of or physical cruelty, which was absent.
The State, represented by , countered that the investigation revealed conflicting statements from the victim. In her initial statement under , she disclosed the domestic work and promised payment, but in her subsequent statement under , she presented a modified version. The State argued that these contradictions created a factual dispute that could not be resolved at the pre-trial stage.
Court: Conflicting Statements Cannot Be Resolved at Pre-Trial Stage
Justice Kumar observed that the case diary contained "two completely different versions" of the story—one suggesting employment in exchange for payment, and the other portraying a voluntary charitable arrangement. The court noted that the defence of humanitarian help and the applicability of the A. Nizamuddin judgment involved heavily .
The court emphasized that under Section 482 CrPC, it cannot conduct a
or weigh the value of statements.
"Checking how reliable witness statements are, resolving the contradictions between the Section 161 and Section 164 statements, examining the actual environment of the house, and figuring out whether it was child labour or genuine humanitarian help are matters that fall exclusively within the domain of the learned trial court during the crucible of a full-fledged trial,"
the judgment held.
The court further clarified that the of A. Nizamuddin could not be applied as a "" at the pre-trial stage when the core question of charity versus illegal child labour is heavily disputed. The initial Section 161 statement and the late-night recovery at 9:25 PM provided material warranting trial.
Verdict: Petition Dismissed, Trial to Proceed
The court found that the case diary contained sufficient initial material and witness statements to legally allow the trial to proceed under the invoked penal statutes. It recorded that the defence of humanitarian help and the application of precedents like A. Nizamuddin involve that cannot be settled through a quashing petition.
Consequently, the dismissed the criminal revision application (C.R.R. 1606 of 2024) and vacated any interim stay. The learned was directed to expedite the trial strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the judgment.
The decision underscores that while the courts have a duty to protect vulnerable children, they also must ensure that weak or malicious cases are not allowed to proceed. In this case, the presence of conflicting statements tipped the balance in favour of allowing a full trial to determine the truth.
