SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2296

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT 
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. 
M/s. Good Shepherd Evangelical Mission Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Gideon Jacon and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State, represented by Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB, Chennai – Respondent 
Crl.R.C.(MD). No.796 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD). No.8580 of 2024
Decided On : 03-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. K. Samidurai.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mohideen Basha N., Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I cases.

Allegations of trafficking must meet statutory definitions; insufficient evidence or lack of necessary sanction renders related charges unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 368, 201, 370, 370-A, 295-A, 153-A - Orphanages and Other Charitable Home (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960 - Section 24 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 - Section 32, 33, 34 - Criminal revision challenging charges of trafficking and exploitation against petitioners running a charitable home. (Paras 1-40)

(B) Discharge application - Grounds for discharge must be examined against available materials. Allegations must establish prima facie case for proceeding with charges. Court must consider whether allegations suggest commission of offences clearly. (Paras 14, 15, 40)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, running a charitable home for children, were accused of trafficking and abusing minors. Allegations involved illegal confinement and misleading parents into signing blank consent forms. The case arose from a Public Interest Litigation that prompted a CBI investigation. (Paras 2-4, 9, 10)

Findings of Court:
Charges under Sections 370, 467, and Section 24 were set aside as insufficiently supported by evidence. Charges under Sections 370-A and 201 were upheld, allowing the trial to proceed. (Paras 40(i)-(iii))

Issues: Whether the evidence sufficed to maintain charges of trafficking and exploitation under relevant statutes and if the trial court erred in allowing charges to persist. (Paras 15, 40)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the allegations related to trafficking did not meet statutory definitions under the IPC, and lack of sufficient sanction affected the Orphanages Act charges. It emphasized that preliminary evidence must show prima facie grounds to proceed. (Paras 20, 38)

Result: Criminal Revision partly allowed; charges under Sections 370, 467 IPC and Section 24 of the Orphanages Act set aside, charges under Sections 370-A and 201 IPC upheld.

Table of Content
1. petitioners filed criminal revision against earlier orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. previous proceedings and trial of the case. (Para 4 , 5)
3. contention regarding absence of evidence for charges. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. respondent's stance based on investigation findings. (Para 11 , 12)
5. court's considerations regarding charges framing. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. legal interpretation of section 370 ipc. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. arguments on exploitation definitions under the law. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
8. court's analysis of sexual exploitation charges. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
9. false documents and lack of evidentiary use in allegations. (Para 27 , 28)
10. legal criteria for forgery under ipc. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
11. sanction requirements for prosecution under specific act. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
12. court's final order on various charges. (Para 39)
13. final decision on charges retained or quashed. (Para 40)

ORDER :

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

This Criminal Revision is filed to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.93 of 2024 in S.C.No.48 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions-cum-Mahila Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 19.06.2024 and set aside the same as illegal.

2. The petitioners' case is that the first petitioner is a Company, M/s.Good Shepherd Evangelical Mission Pvt. Ltd. and the second petitioner is the Director of the said Company and also a pastor. The petitioner runs a destitute home for children functioning as Mose Ministries in Trichy Town, Tamil Nadu. Permission was granted by the District Collector to run the home. The home is running as a charity giving food, shelter and education to the destitute and abandoned children. While so, in the year 2015, the District Social Welfare Officer refused to give registration of the institution as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 and the Tamil Nadu Hostels and Homes for Women and Children (Regulation) Act, 2014. The home, therefore, was constrained to file W.P.(MD). No.16723 of 2015.

3. When the matter was pending, one organisation namely, Change India, filed a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.(MD).Nos.16273 and 20895 of 2015 alleging trafficking and illegal confinement of 89 children in the petitioner's home praying for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. By a common order, dated 30.11.2016, this Court ordered an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and there was also a direction to the Director of Social Welfare to pass orders based on the relevant documents concerning the application of the petitioners therein. Thereafter, upon the investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a Final Report against the petitioners alleging the offences under Sections 363 , 368, 201, 370-A, 295-A and 153-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 24 re/w Sections 13 , 16(3) of the Orphanages and other Charitable Home (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960 and Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Hostels and Homes for Women and Children (Regulation) Act, 2014.

4. Initially, the case was taken on file by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli in C.C.No.2534 of 2019. The petitioners filed Crl. O.P.(MD). No.1403 of 2020 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2534 of 2019. By the order, dated 08.06.2023, the quash petition was allowed in part insofar as the offences under Sections 366 , 368, 295-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , Section 20 r/w Sections 6 and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Hostels and Homes for Women and Children (Regulation) Act, 2014. However, the proceedings in C.C.No.2534 of 2019 were not quashed insofar as the offences under Sections 20 1 , 370, 370A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 24 r/w Section 13 , 16(3) of the Orphanages and Other Charitable Home (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960 and the offences under Sections 32 , 33 and 34 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed S.L.P.No.9542 of 2023 and the said Spe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top