Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J
Sundar – Appellant
Versus
State rep by The Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Salem District. – Respondent
CRL MP NO. 4803 OF 2026 & CRL MP NO. 4802 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G.Anbuchezheiyan
For the Respondents: Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
The court emphasized that accusations based on factual claims in human trafficking cases must be decided at trial, not dismissed in pre-trial motions.
Headnote:This Judgment analyzes offenses under Sections 143(1)(f) and 143(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in a quash petition where the petitioner contended they were wrongfully accused of human trafficking without valid evidence. The court found the accusations based on factual claims requiring examination at trial, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The court highlighted that victims were unaware of the circumstances of their involvement and stated, 'This Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.' The judgment reaffirmed the trial court's authority to adjudicate the matter based on evidence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of human trafficking charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposition against quash petition substantiates case. (Para 3) |
Order
The petitioner/first accused in P.R.C. No.287 of 2025, who is facing trial for offences under Sections 143(1)(f) and 143(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, has filed this quash petition.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the prosecution has projected him as being involved in human trafficking. However, the victims (LW1 to LW19) have not stated anything against the petitioner, nor have their family members alleged that the petitioner indulged in trafficking or received any money. The petitioner was not present at Salem Junction when the victims were secured by the defacto complainant along with the Railway Police. According to the petitioner, he has been prosecuted without valid material and on a wrong premise.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the contention of the petitioner stating that the defacto complainant is the Child Helpline Supervisor. The petitioner had engaged A2 and A3, who acted as agents. A2, hailing from Madhya Pradesh, collected minors from North India and brought them to Salem, while A3, from Thoothukudi District (where the petitioner resides), coordinated with A2. These minors were intended to be sent to various factories for hazardous work. The petitioner, proprietor of Valli Bore Wells, is alleged to be the person behind this operation, employing the victims in bonded labour. The victims, being minors, were unaware of who brought them or for what purpose. Their statements have been recorded, investigation completed, and charge sheet filed listing LW1 to LW21. The case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem, instead of Sessions Court as summons to A2 could not be served.
4. Since this case involves human trafficking of minors, and the victims’
statements confirm their lack of awareness of the circumstances under which they were taken, the points raised by the petitioner are factual in nature. This Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations herein are only for the limited purpose of disposal of this petition, and the trial court shall decide the case on the evidence before it. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
