The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence to substantiate allegations under Section 75 of the JJ Act, and the court's authority to quash FIRs in cases where there is a lack of evidence to support the charges.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 496/2016, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, South Delhi for offences punishable under Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015 (`JJ Act') and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that an FIR was registered on the allegations that petitioner, who is 71 years of age and lives with her daughter in Vasant Kunj, had employed a domestic help who was a minor at the time of alleged employment. On 29.09.2016, a complaint was received from the concerned Magistrate under Section 27(9) of the JJ Act, Kasturba Niketan, Child Welfare Committee (`CWC'), Lajpat Nagar-11, District South, New Delhi, directing the SHO concerned to take legal action on the present complaint. It was alleged in the complaint that child `X' at the time of lodging of complaint was 18 years of age i.e., on 31.08.2016, while she had been produced before CWC, Lajpat Nagar by Judith Neihojhkim, Social Worker. As per ossification test report, the victim was found to be between 18-20 years of age as on 31.08.2016. As per JJ Act, the age at lower side i.e. 18 years on 31.08.2016 is to be considered. It was, therefore, argued that the child `X' who had been doing domestic work at two places before 31.08.2016 at the relevant time was a minor. The child had informed that she had worked as domestic help for one year at the house of Ms. Bhawna at Preet Vihar, New Delhi and the present petitioner i.e., Ms. Neelam for 21/2 months in the year 2016. During investigation they had been informed that Shiv Kumar who runs an agency `Moirya Maid Consultant' had engaged the child at both the above places and Mr. Kapito was the person who had brought the children for work. Both the employers and Shiv Kumar were produced by the Investigating Officer along with documents available regarding engagement of children for work. Thereafter, directions were issued to take legal action against employers as per law on or before 31.10.2016. After registration of the case, the child was produced before CWC by the NGO concerned and the child was restored to her elder sister Ms. Sushila. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. During trial, charges under Section 75 JJ Act were framed against the petitioner herein by the concerned Magistrate.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is law abiding citizen of 71 years of age and was shocked to receive the summons from the learned Magistrate as child `X' had worked with her barely for 21/2 months and she did not know that she was a minor as she had hired the domestic help through maid providing agency after due verification of documents provided by them, which clearly indicated that she was above 18 years of age. It is stated that as per ossification test report, she was found to be between 18-20 years of age and therefore, no offence is made out against the present petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was served summons after six years of filing of the FIR. It is stated that since the victim was hired through Shiv Kumar, Moirya Maid Consultant Private Limited, they had provided the Village Council Development Committee Kashitra document as proof of age of the victim and only thereafter she was hired for domestic help. It is also stated that since the alleged victim in this case was involved with a neighbour's driver and had created ruckus on 15.08.2016 when the driver had refused to marry her, the petitioner had herself called the police who had taken her to the police station. The petitioner had also informed Shiv Kumar about the incident and that the services of the child were not required. They had also come to know later on, that an FIR under Section 376 of I