Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 2195
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Nitin W. Sambre, R.N. Laddha, JJ.
Manish Kirtibhai Patel - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 303 of 2020
Decided On : 23-01-2023
Rupali Shirke, Advocate, V.B. Konde Deshmukh, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings if the allegations do not constitute an offence, even if a charge sheet has been filed, to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:
QUASHING - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India; Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C.; Sec. 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The court examined the applicability of Sec. 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which requires proof of engaging a child in bondage for employment. The court found no evidence supporting the allegations against the Petitioners, leading to the conclusion that the FIR did not satisfy the necessary legal provisions. The court emphasized the importance of not subjecting individuals to trial without sufficient grounds, thereby quashing the FIR and charge sheet against the Petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, a husband and wife, sought to quash an FIR registered against them for allegedly engaging a minor girl in bondage for employment. The complaint was made by their neighbor, whose maidservant was the mother of the alleged victim. The Petitioners contended that the allegations were baseless and that the victim had been visiting their home to play with their children.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not meet the essential ingredients of Sec. 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The evidence presented did not support claims of the Petitioners engaging the victim in bondage or withholding her earnings. The court noted that the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process of law.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet constituted an offence under Sec. 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and whether the High Court could exercise its powers under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that if the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie constitute an offence, the High Court has the authority to quash the proceedings. It emphasized that the essential elements of the alleged offence were not satisfied in this case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and charge sheet against the Petitioners, ruling that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
R.N.LADDHA,J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the Petitioners seek the quashing of the FIR No.38 of 2019, dtd. 20/1/2019, registered against them at Kasturba Marg Police Station, Borivali, Mumbai and the proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the ingredients of Sec. 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are not at all satisfied on the basis of the allegations made in the said complaint and the material placed on record.
4. It revealed from the record that the Petitioners are the husband and wife, and the Complainant/Respondent No.2 is their neighbour. It revealed from the record that the mother of the alleged victim girl was working with Respondent No.2 as a maidservant. Further, it revealed from the record that on completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the Petitioners, being CC No.5392 of 2019, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 68th Court at Borivali, Mumbai.
5. Ms Rupali Shirke, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners took us through the FIR as also the statement of the witnesses and submitted that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the Petitioners either ostensibly engaged the victim girl and kept her in bondage for the purpose of employment or withholds her earnings or used such earnings for their own purposes.
6. It is submitted that the allegations made against the Petitioners that they engaged the victim girl and kept her in bondage was nothing but the Complainant's figment of imagination.
7. It is submitted that at the relevant time the victim girl was 16 years old and had appeared for 10th Standard examination. Hence, the victim used to accompany her mother to the residence of the Complainant. The Petitioners came in contact with the mother of the victim through her sister Asha who used to work with them. Sayabai/the mother of the victim girl approached the Petitioners for monetary help for the education of her victim daughter. The victim used to come to the petitioner's house to spend time and to play with the Petitioner's minor children.
8. It is submitted that the bare reading of complaint alongwith the statement of the mother and the alleged victim girl shows that no offence is made out against the Petitioners under Sec. 79 of the Act. It is submitted that the consequential investigation, too, does not impute any criminal act to the Petitioners. It is submitted that even if, the allegations in the charge sheet are taken as gospel truth, no offence can be said to have been made against the Petitioners to warrant their prosecution. The alleged victim girl has stated that she was neither harassed nor was subjected or forced to do any hazardous work. The mother of the alleged victim girl also stated that her daughter used to play with the minor children of the Petitioners. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the mother of the alleged victim girl stating that the Petitioners never harassed her alleged victim daughter nor forcibly made to do work in their house. It has been submitted that the present complaint was filed against the Petitioners out of some vengeance and to settle some personal grievance by the complainant/Respondent.
9. Mr Konde Deshmukh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that there is nothing on record to make out the case under Sec. 79 of the Act against the Petitioners. He fairly admitted that the ingredients of Sec. 79 of the Act are absent in this case. He, however, submitted that all these aspects should have been gone into the trial. According to him, even though the inherent powers of the High Court u
