No case under IPC or JJ Act established as victim was not in bondage.

ORDER

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026 The additional 2^nd respondent has already entered appearance through the counsel and filed an affidavit denying the allegations in the charge.

2. This is a petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 1230 of 2016 of Chalakkudy Police Station, which is pending as C.C. No. 1052 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District Court, Thrissur. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 370 (6) r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act).

3. The prosecution case is that the 2^nd accused, who is the mother of the victim minor girl, secretly allowed the minor to stay in the residence of the 1^st accused, to enable the 1^st accused to compel her to do household jobs and thereby they are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this is a false case foisted against the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners.

5. In the statement given by the victim, she stated that her mother took her to the residence of the 1^st petitioner, that in the said house she had to do only small household works and also that the 1^st petitioner used to pay for her work to her mother. From Annexure A2 report of examination for estimation of the age issued by the Government Medical College, Thrissur, the age of the victim was more than 16 and below 18 in the year 2016. Now she became a major. She was impleaded as additional 2^nd respondent in this Crl.M.C. She appeared through a lawyer and filed an affidavit stating that she was not kept in the residence of the 1^st petitioner in bondage and also that she was paid for the work done by her to the 1^st petitioner.

6. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 370 (6) r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 79 of the JJ Act. From the statement given by the additional 2^nd respondent, it is revealed that she was not abducted by anybody and that she was staying along with the 1^st petitioner voluntarily at the instance of her mother. She also stated that she was not under any bondage and also that she was paid for the work done for the 1^st petitioner. The age of the victim at the time of the alleged incident was above 16 and below 18 and it is revealed that she was directed to do only light household works and that she was not in bondage and wrongfully withheld by anybody.

7. In the decision in Jissy S. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1169] , after referring to various decisions, this Court held that in order to attract Section 79 of the JJ Act, the child would have been kept in bondage by the accused or the earnings of the child should have been used by the accused for his own purpose. In the instant case, the prosecution itself has no case that the petitioners have kept the victim in bondage or that the earnings of the victim have been used by the accused persons and as such on that ground also the offence under Section 79 of the JJ Act is not made out.

8. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioners and as such this Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed.

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 1052 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District Court, Thrissur, arising out of Crime No. 1230 of 2016 of Chalakkudy Police Station, is quashed.

Sd/-