Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Sagar Jotwani – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Application U/S 482 No.3802 of 2019
Decided on : 15-05-2024
QUASHING - JUVENILE JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015; Section 370(5) IPC; Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015, which penalizes the exploitation of child employees, and Section 370(5) IPC concerning human trafficking. The court emphasized the necessity of evidence to substantiate charges and the requirement for the trial court to provide reasoned orders when summoning an accused. The lack of evidence against the applicant led to the conclusion that the trial court's cognizance was an abuse of process, resulting in the quashing of the charge sheet and summoning order.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Sagar Jotwani, sought to quash a charge sheet and summoning order related to the alleged employment of minor boys in his factory. He contended that he had no direct involvement in hiring non-managerial staff and that the minors were sent by a labor contractor, Yashpal Singh, who provided no evidence of their ages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no cogent evidence against the applicant to support the charges under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015, and Section 370(5) IPC. It noted that the trial court failed to apply its mind and provide a reasoned order when summoning the applicant.
Issues: Whether the trial court had sufficient grounds to summon the applicant under the relevant sections of law and whether the charge sheet was supported by adequate evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the issuance of process by a magistrate must reflect a careful consideration of the evidence and the law applicable. It emphasized that a lack of evidence and a non-reasoned order from the trial court constituted grounds for quashing the proceedings.
Final Decision: The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the charge sheet and summoning order against the applicant were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Shamim Ahmed, J.
1. Heard Shri Ankit Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajeev Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the entire material placed on record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant, namely-Sagar Jotwani seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 24.12.2017 submitted in Case Crime No.487/2017 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 and summoning order dated 13.09.2018 passed by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.54326/2018 whereby cognizance has been taken and the applicant has been summoned under Section 370(5) I.P.C. and Section 79 of Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 and bailable warrant dated 15.03.2019 passed in the aforesaid case against the applicant.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is Sole Proprietor of the proprietorship known as 'Kumar Dalmoth Factory.' having its registered address at Annaura Gaon, Amausi Road, Lucknow. He further submits that being the proprietor of the aforesaid proprietorship, the applicant had no direct role to play in the appointment/ selection of the non-managerial staff.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the officials of the factory in order to engage the workers contacted one Yashpal Singh alias Papu, the said Yashpal Singh who happens to be a labour thekedar thereafter sent some 10-15 boys in the factory of the applicant.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that when the officials of the factory asked about the particulars & the ids of the labours in order to ascertain the whereabouts of the labours & also about their age, the said Yashpal Singh informed that he is having the ids of the labours & gave an affidavit to the effect that he shall provide the same whenever it is needed. Meanwhile on 04.8.2017 an inspection was carried out & it was alleged that 16 boys were found in the aforesaid factory that were employed as labour & were not adults.
6. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that an FIR was also lodged at Police Station Sarojini Nagar District Lucknow under Section 370(5) IPC & Section & under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015. He further submits that subsequently an investigation was conducted however without there being any independent or cogent evidence the investigation agency submitted the Charge Sheet dated 05.8.2017 in Case Crime No. 487/2017 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that there is absolutely no evidence against the applicant so as to say that he has committed any offence under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015. Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 is reproduced hereinunder:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, whoever ostensibly engages a child and keeps him in bondage for the purpose of employment or withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purposes shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine of one lakh rupees.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the term "employment" shall also include selling goods and services, and entertainment in public places for economic gain."
8. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no evidence so as to say that the applicant has engaged a child and kept him in bondage for the purpose of employment or has withheld his earnings or used such earning for his own purposes. However learned Trail Court without appre
Point of Law : Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see ....
The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the credibility of allegations and exercising inherent powers to prevent abuse of the legal process.
A detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of summoning of an accused person.
The court established that a Magistrate must apply judicial scrutiny to the facts and evidence before issuing summons in a criminal complaint, and that mere allegations without a prima facie case do ....
Attempt to Murder - Court while hearing the matter under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at initial stage of trial, cannot examine and genuineness of the statement, allegation made in FIR.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
