Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1622
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.
Farhana Begum, W/o. Haji Abdur Rauf And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam, Rep. By The PP, Assam And Anr. – Respondents
Crl.Pet. No.231 of 2024
Decided On : 04-09-2025
For the Petitioner: Ms. S. B. Choudhury, Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, Ms. Z. R. Majumdar, Mr. S. K. Das
For the Respondents: PP, Assam, Mrs. S. Khataniar, Mr R. M. Das, SC, Social Welfare Deptt.
Court quashed charges against one petitioner due to lack of evidence while retaining charges against another based on prima facie case, emphasizing that allegations must establish involvement in offenses.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 325, 370(4), 34 - Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Section 75 - Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 - Quashing of F.I.R. - Allegations of physical abuse and trafficking of a minor for domestic work - FIR registered against petitioners for exploitation, but no evidence implicating petitioner No.2 - Case quashed against petitioner No.2 due to lack of evidence while prima facie case against petitioner No.1 retained. (Paras 23, 24)
(B) Evidence - Electronic evidence - Lack of admissibility due to absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act - Video footage's reliability questioned due to editing claims. (Paras 6, 8)
(C) Common Intention - Requirement to establish involvement in an alleged offence under Section 34 IPC - No evidence showing common intention of petitioner No.2 to commit offences. (Paras 21, 23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners faced allegations of using a minor as a domestic helper and subjecting her to physical abuse, resulting in F.I.R. and Charge-Sheet being lodged against them. The victim claimed mistreatment and that she was promised education. (Paras 5, 12)
Findings of Court:
Charges were quashed against petitioner No.2 due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing that allegations did not establish their involvement in the offences. The case would proceed against petitioner No.1 based on prima facie evidence. (Paras 23, 24)
Issues: Whether the allegations constitute an offence against the petitioners, specifically the lack of evidence against petitioner No.2 involving child trafficking and abuse. (Paras 13, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that while allegations were serious, a lack of direct evidence and discrepancies in the victim's accounts against petitioner No.2 undermined the prosecution's case, justifying the quashing of charges against her. Conversely, prima facie materials against petitioner No.1 justified maintaining the case against her. (Paras 23, 24)
Result: The court quashed the F.I.R. and charges against petitioner No.2 and similar findings for the co-accused while retaining the case against other accused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common legal questions raised in petitions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts of case and fir details (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioners' arguments regarding video evidence and reputation (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. state’s arguments and witness statements against petitioners (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's initial observation on fir and statements (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. legal interpretation of relevant sections and evidence evaluation (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. absence of common intention under ipc section 34 for petitioner no.2 (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. outcome for petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.1 dismissal (Para 23 , 24) |
| 9. outcome for petitioner aklima begum's involvement (Para 25 , 26) |
| 10. final disposition of both petitions (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT :
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 involve
