Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

1. The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C. No. 240 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kasargode. He is being prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under S. 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act'). On 2.6.2011, at 9.15 pm, the Sub Inspector of Police, Vidyanagar police station, while on law and order patrol duty, received reliable information that juveniles were being employed in the "Milan" hotel run by the petitioner. He, along with his subordinate officers, reached the hotel arid found that a 15 year old boy was engaged in washing utensils and cleaning the tables in the said hotel. On enquiry, it was revealed that the boy was a native of Jharkhand and that he was being employed by the petitioner. On finding that the petitioner had engaged a child in his establishment in violation of the letters of law, the Sub Inspector rushed to the police station and registered the aforesaid crime. Later, investigation was conducted by questioning witnesses, which included the father of the juvenile and employees of the shop, and a final report was laid before Court charging the petitioner under S. 26 of the Act.

2. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case for quashing the pending proceedings on the ground that the prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of law as none of the ingredients of S. 23 of the Act is attracted.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of Annexure-I final report will not reveal that the offence under S. 23 of the Act is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was submitted that in order to attract the offence under S. 23 of the Act, there should be a definite allegation in the final report that the person in actual charge of or control over a juvenile of the child has assaulted, abandoned, exposed or willfully neglected the juvenile or causes or procure him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner which is likely to cause the juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering.

5. Elucidating further, the learned counsel took this Court through the F.I.R. and the final report and it was submitted that the allegations against the petitioner in the final report is only that he had provided employment to a juvenile aged 15 years and nothing else. According to the learned counsel, there is no interdiction under S. 23 of the Act in employing a juvenile or a child in any act which is not hazardous in nature. The learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the statement of witnesses produced along with the final report. It was submitted that the statement of father and also the co-workers in the hotel will only show that the juvenile had voluntarily come to the hotel for employment and that remuneration was duly being paid by the petitioner to the juvenile. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not placed any material to show that the petitioner had provided employment to the juvenile with the knowledge that Samir was under 18 years, as, according to the counsel, the father has stated in his statement, that the child had not attended School.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the juvenile from out of State was aged just 15 years when the offence was detected by the Sub Inspector and it was revealed on investigation that, the conditions of employment was not satisfactory. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the invocation of powers under S. 482 of the Code was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

7. I have gone through the F.I.R. and also the final report which has been produced by the petitioner. It has to be mentioned that the police have questioned the father of the juvenile and he has been cited as CW8 in the charge sheet. His sta