Directors cannot be held liable under trafficking and juvenile justice laws without specific allegations of control or coercion over the victims.

O R D E R

The petitioners in these cases are accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 in CP No.2 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi.

2. The petitioners are Directors of a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and engaged in the business of Seafood Export. CP No. 2 of 2021 arises from Crime No.1706 of 2016 of Palluruthy Police Station, which was registered on the allegation that 43 women workers from Odissa, Andra Pradesh and Assam had been employed in the company with the intention of exploiting them and without affording necessary facilities to them. It was further alleged that out of the aforesaid 43 persons, 27 persons were not adults, and they were below the age of 18. The offences alleged are those under Section 370 (3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 75 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act . After filing of these Crl.M.Cs, it was reported before this Court that on further investigation, the Station House Officer, Palluruthy Police Station, Kochi City, has filed a report indicating that the offences under 370(3) IPC and Sections 75 and 79 of the will not lie and seeking deletion of the aforesaid provisions from the final report filed in Court and instead seeking to add the provisions of Section 420 r/w Section 34 . The said report was filed under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also sought to delete the petitioners, namely accused Nos.3 to 5, from the array of parties. However, the learned Magistrate did not consider the second report as the learned Magistrate was only acting as a committal court.

3. Sri. B.G. Harindranath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.4211 of 2021 filed by (accused No.5) and Adv.Sri.Tom K.Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.5617 of 2021 filed by (accused Nos.3 and 4) would contend that even ignoring the contents of the second report, the proceedings against the petitioners in CP No.2 of 2021 are liable to be quashed as the petitioners cannot be accused of having committed any offence under Section 370 (3) of IPC or Sections 75 and 79 of the JJ Act. It is submitted that, in order to attract an offence under , there must be a specific allegation that the accused must have, for the purposes of exploitation, either recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received a person or persons using threats, force, or any other form of coercion, by abduction, by practising fraud, or deception, or by abuse of power or by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received. It is submitted that none of these ingredients are made out in the final report filed before the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that the petitioners in these cases are only directors of the company that employed the persons in question. It is submitted that there is absolutely no allegation either in the final report or in the statements recorded from the concerned persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which would indicate that the petitioners had committed the offence of trafficking as defined in . Coming to the offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act, the learned counsel has placed reliance of the judgment of this Court inNizamudhin A v. Station House Officer, Kannur Town Station and Another; 2017 (3) KHC 790 to contend that, in order to attract an offence under Section 75 of JJ Act, there must be an allegation that the accused had assaulted or abandoned or abused or exposed or wilfully neglected the victim or caused or procured the victim to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in any manner which is likely to cause to the victim unnecessary mental or physical suffering. It is submitted that even if the entirety of the final report is accepted to be true, the petitioners cannot be stated to have committe