The High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC when there are conflicting statements and disputed questions of fact regarding whether a minor was employed as child labour or provided shelter out of charity, as such determinations require a full trial.

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

1. The administration of criminal jurisprudence within a constitutional democracy requires a very careful and balanced approach. On one hand, the courts have a duty to protect vulnerable people, especially children and minors, from exploitation, abuse, and illegal treatment, while on the other hand, higher courts also have an equally important duty to protect innocent individuals from false, unnecessary, orharassing criminal cases that misuse the legal process.

2. The present criminal revision application invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners, who are a married couple, have approached this forum seeking the complete quashing of Techno City Police Station Case No. 231 of 22 dated November 30, 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4625 of 2022. This encompasses the consequential Charge Sheet No. 215 of 22 dated December 9, 2022, submitted under Sections 342, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The proceedings are presently pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat in thedistrict of North 24 Parganas.

3. Looking at the facts from the case diary, the whole matter started onNovember 30, 2022, around 9:25 PM, when a team member of an NGO called Childline, named Nihar Ranjan Mondal, on the basis of the information received by him on November 28, 2022 on Child Helpline No. 1098, has rescued the minor child from Flat Number K/45-102 at Shapoorji Housing Complex. The flat belonged to Petitioner No. 1 who works in a private company and Petitioner No. 2 is a governmentemployee. They were living there with their two children.

4. During this surprise visit, the team found a 15-year-old girl namedRahima Khatun inside the flat. Following the rescue, a formal written complaint was filed at the Techno City Police Station. The main allegation was that the minor girl was wrongfully kept locked up in the said flat and was made to work as a domestic help to look after the petitioners' children and do heavy household chores, allegedly for apromised monthly payment of Rs. 1,500/-, along with food and stay.

5. After getting this complaint, the police registered an FIR and started aninvestigation. The investigating officer visited the spot, talked to witnesses, and recorded their statements under Section 161 of the CrPC. Most importantly, the statement of the minor girl was recorded before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC. Once the investigation finished, the police felt there was enough evidence and filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners under the afore-mentionedsections.

6. Mr. Abhrajit Roychowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioners, has argued that no legally sustainable or cognizable case is made out against his clients under any of the invoked statutes. His main point is that there was never any employment contract or agreement, and the girl was never hired or employed by the petitionersas a domestic helper or labourer.

7. He explained that the girl was actually facing severe family problems and had no place to go. Out of pure kindness, love, and charity, the petitioners gave her a roof over her head, food, and shelter. He said any occasional money given to her was just a voluntary act of kindness, born out of a benevolent and charitable disposition rather than contractual wages or monthly salary, and whatever small help she did around the house was all out of gratitude and affection, not forcedlabour.

8. Learned Counsel has further urged that these benevolent acts neither violate the penal provisions of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, nor attract the basic requirements for an offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 as the statutory ingredients of the sa