No prima facie case against the second petitioner; allegations lacked sufficient evidence and did not meet criteria under relevant laws for assault or exploitation.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.

Both Criminal Petition No.231/2024 and Criminal Petition No.222/2024 were heard analogously and are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order since both these petitions raises common questions of law and arises out of the same set of facts.

2. Heard Mrs. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and Mr. K. K. Das and Mr. J. Chutia, learned Additional Public Prosecutors, Assam for the State/respondent No.1. Also heard Mrs. S. Khataniar, learned Legal Aid Counsel representing the respondent No.2 in both the petitions.

3. For the sake convenience, the facts of the case leading to filing of Criminal Petition No.231/2024 may briefly be discussed as under.

4. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 23.06.2023 corresponding to Hojai Police Station Case No.300/2023 (G.R. Case No.1214/2023) registered under Sections 325 /370(4)/34 of the IPC read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act read with Section 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The petitioners have also challenged the Charge-Sheet No.325 dated 30.09.2023 under Section 370(4)/34 of the IPC read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act read with Section 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 as well as the subsequent Criminal proceedings of the said case.

5. The F.I.R. dated 23.06.2023 lodged by the In-Charge of the District Child Protection Officer reveals inter-alia that the victim was rescued by the Hojai Police Station, DCPU, CWC, Hojai after having found the accused persons using her as a domestic helper, who was further found to have been physically abused by the accused persons mentioned therein. It is also stated that the video relating to the said offence has been circulated in the social media. In the said F.I.R. both the petitioners were arrayed as accused persons and the same was registered under the relevant provisions of law as mentioned above. The police after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No.325 dated 30.09.2023 against both the petitioners.

6. Mrs. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before this Court that the video clipping which was mentioned in the F.I.R. was edited and by the same a different story was projected by people with vested interest as the petitioner No.2 is stated to be a renowned political and social person. The learned counsel has submitted that the entire exercise was only to destroy the reputation of the family of petitioner No.2. Mrs. Choudhury has placed reliance on Section 65-B of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT and has submitted that no certificate was issued till date in the present proceeding as required under the said provision for admissibility of the electronic evidence. The learned counsel has also submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again observed that video is not a reliable piece of evidence which is susceptible to manipulation and various editing. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in the evidence collected by the police personnel in the present case the petitioner No.2 is no way involved in the offence and that she submits that the petitioner No.2 is 85 years of age and is a heart patient who is also suffering from many ailment. She, as such, submits that no offence is made out against the petitioners on a bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the accom