Ajay Malik vs State of Uttarakhand - 2025 Supreme(SC) 241

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 343 and 370 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 61(2), 127 and 143] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 359 and 528] – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Conspiracy and wrongful confinement for the purpose of human trafficking – Discharge of co-accused – Mobile phone allegedly left by appellant with Complainant and subsequently recovered by police, raises questions about plausibility of wrongful confinement – On an objective consideration of uncontroverted material on record, there can be no other conclusion except to hold that allegations, even if accepted to be true, do not disclose commission of offence by appellant under Section 343 of IPC – Complainant is now happily married and has no desire to prolong embarrassment caused to appellant and his family due to allegations – Complainant has sought to recant entirety of her allegations against appellant – No prima facie offence under Section 370 of IPC qua appellant has been made out as well – Not only is there no evidence of neglect or exploitation of Complainant by appellant on record, but her own sworn statements in denying any abuse must also be given due credence – Charge of conspiracy must be explicitly evidenced and should be easily discernable in acts of conspiring parties – Principal ingredient of this offence is agreement to commit an offence – Conspiracy cannot be made out without some kind of physical manifestation of alleged agreement being established – Thorough review of material on record does not indicate any orchestrated arrangement by appellant with co-accused to exploit or confine Complainant – Investigating Agency has failed to establish any prima facie case – No element of illegal confinement, trafficking, or criminal conspiracy has been established against appellant – Criminal proceedings quashed by invoking extraordinary powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India. (Paras 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26 and 55)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 250] – Discharge of accused – Discharge stage acts as a critical filter to eliminate cases lacking legal merit, sparing accused from unnecessary proceedings, while ensuring that credible cases proceed to trial – Discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is justified when material on record fails to disclose a prima facie case against accused to proceed for trial – Legislative spirit behind this provision envisions rights of accused being balanced with public interest, so as to ultimately prevent abuse of legal process. (Para 34)

(C) Exploitation and Abuse of Domestic Help – Malady and Remedy – Demand for domestic workers has been mounting in India, in consonance with rapid urbanization and development – Contemporary international standards not only acknowledge vulnerability of domestic workers but also strive to provide them extensive protection and parity with other labourers – Domestic workers often belong to marginalised communities – Despite their growing demand, this indispensable workforce has also been the most vulnerable to exploitation and abuse – Simple reason for this harassment and rampant abuse, which seems to be prevalent throughout the country, is legal vacuum which exists vis-à-vis rights and protection of domestic workers – Domestic workers in India remain largely unprotected and without any comprehensive legal recognition – As a result, they frequently endure low wages, unsafe environments, and extended hours without effective recourse – No effective legislative or executive action in furtherance of enacting a statute, which could prove to be a boon to millions of vulnerable domestic workers across the country, has been undertaken as of now – Despite absence of comprehensive protections for domestic workers through a Central Law, several States have taken initiatives to safeguard their rights and welfare – Legislature and elected representatives of Indian people, are expected to take imperative steps towards ensuring an equitable and dignified life for domestic workers. (Paras 38, 39, 41, 47, 50, 52 and 54)

Facts of the case:

Instant appeals arise out of the common First Information Report which inter alia contains allegations of wrongful confinement and trafficking of a female domestic worker-Complainant.

Findings of Court:

Impugned Judgement dated 01.09.2022 passed by High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 96/2018 is accordingly set aside. Additionally, FIR No. 60/2017 (Case Crime No. 94/2017), charge-sheet and all other proceedings therefore arising qua him hereby quashed.

Result : Appeal allowed.

1. Whether Section 343 IPC (wrongful confinement) was made out against Ajay Malik?

No prima facie case. Alternative exit was available to the Complainant, she possessed a mobile phone and temporary pass, and her own affidavits confirm she was never confined. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )

2. Whether Section 370 IPC (human trafficking) was made out against Ajay Malik?

No prima facie case. No evidence of exploitation or neglect exists, and the Complainant's sworn statements deny any abuse or trafficking by Ajay Malik. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )

3. Whether Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy) was made out against Ajay Malik?

No prima facie case. The only agreement was the employment of the Complainant as domestic help, with no orchestrated arrangement to exploit or confine her. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )

4. Whether the discharge of co-accused Ashok Kumar was legally correct?

Yes, discharge was correct. No direct allegation by the Complainant against him, he was not named in the original FIR, and no evidence links him to wrongful confinement. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )

5. Can the court issue directions on domestic workers' welfare under Article 142 despite absence of specific legislation?

Yes. The court exercised parens patriae power and Article 142 to issue directions to the Government, while noting it should not ordinarily interfere in the legislative domain. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 )

JUDGMENT :

(Surya Kant, J.)

Leave granted.

2. The instant appeals arise out of the common First Information Report No. 60/2017 (Case Crime No. 94/2017) (FIR), which inter alia contains allegations of wrongful confinement and trafficking of a female domestic worker—the Complainant.

3. To further clarify, SLP (Crl.) No. 8777/2022, has been preferred by the accused Ajay Malik in the FIR, as against the judgment dated 01.09.2022 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (High Court), whereby Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2018 (CMA), seeking the compounding and quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him, was rejected (Ajay Malik’s case). SLP (Crl.) No. 15131/2024, on the other hand, has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand, challenging the judgment dated 12.01.2021, in Criminal Revision No. 173 of 2019, whereby the co-accused Ashok Kumar’s Revision Application seeking discharge was allowed by the High Court (Ashok Kumar’s case).

A. FACTS

4. Considering that these appeals arise from the same incident, their factual matrices remain predominantly uniform, with differences largely being restricted to the differing roles ascribed to Ajay Malik and Ashok Kumar. It is thus necessary to briefly advert to the facts that lay the foundation for these appeals.

A. 1 Background to the materialization of the criminal incident

4.1 The Complainant, a resident of Birhipani Nawatoli Bokhi, Birhipani, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, belongs to a financially disadvantaged family from a Scheduled Tribe. In her search for employment to support her family, she was brought to Delhi in 2009 by her neighbours, Subhash and Mohan Ram, under the pretext of securing work.

4.2 Upon her arrival in Delhi, the Complainant was handed over to one Shambhu @ Sambhu Prasad, who reportedly operated an office at Britannia Chowk, Shakurpur, Delhi. Shambhu claimed to run the Saint Maryam Placement Services (Regd.), ostensibly showcased as a social welfare society for Scheduled Tribes (Placement Agency). Shambhu forcibly deployed the Complainant as a domestic help/housekeeper in various households, requiring her to perform tasks such as washing utensils and cleaning. As a result, she was reportedly sent to multiple locations, including Karnal, Delhi, Gurgaon, and Kanpur. The Complainant further alleged in the FIR that Shambhu through the Placement Agency failed to compensate her for the labour extracted, and instead misappropriated her earnings. In this regard, the Complainant also alleged that she was routinely assaulted whenever she requested remuneration or sought permission to return home.

4.3 Ajay Malik recruited the Complainant on 16.10.2016, having purportedly entered into a written agreement with the Placement Agency, for her to work as a domestic help at his official residence. Subsequently, two individuals employed by Shambhu dropped off the Complainant at Ajay Malik’s home in Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Ajay Malik at the time was serving as a Scientist at the Defence Electronics Application Laboratory, Defence Research and Development Organization under the Ministry of Defence (DRDO), where he had been employed since 1988. As a Class-I Officer, Ajay Malik had been allotted a Type-V Government accommodation, where he resided with his wife and two children. The alleged incident is said to have occurred on these premises.

4.4 Ajay Malik, on 22.03.2017, departed from his residence with his entire family, for official duty concerning the SDR-AR Phase II L Band Trials at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Kanpur. During the absence of Ajay Malik and his family, the Complainant was left behind on the premises, the main entry to which had been locked. A spare key to the home had been entrusted to his friend and neighbour, Ashok Kumar, who is alleged to have visited Ajay Malik’s residence regularly to provide the Complainant with drinking water and to keep watch on her. The Complainant has further stated in the FIR that Ajay Malik had also left a mobile phone