*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(CRL.) No. 82/2009

BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Sunita Tiwari & Mr. Bhuwan Ribhu,

Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Baldev Malik, Advocate for Union

of India.

Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel for the

State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

O R D E R

% 23.01.2009

Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel, seeks permission to file

status report. Permission is granted and status report is taken on

record. In the status report it is stated that 23 minor girls, 4 minor

boys and 9 major girls/women were rescued pursuant to search

operations at Sheetal Enterprises, H-11, First Floor, Sakarpur, JJ

Colony, New Delhi. In the status report it is stated that FIR No.

20/2009 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been

recorded by the Police Station, Saraswati Vihar. It is also admitted

2009:DHC:255-DB

that no one has been arrested.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to

joint publication of the Standard Operating Procedures by

Government of India and United Nations in respect of investigation of

crimes for trafficking in forced labour. The status report does not

reveal compliance with the guidelines mentioned therein. It appears

that the police officers concerned have not investigated and

proceeded further with reference to the guidelines. Learned counsel

for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to provisions of

Sections 366A, 367, 370, 371, 372, 373 and 374 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860, Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976, the Child

Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Sections 23 and

26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,

2000. It is stated that all the aforesaid Acts and Provisions are also

applicable and the investigations or proceedings have proceeded on

a wrong basis, without noticing the offences committed under the said

enactments/Sections.

3. Our attention has also been drawn to the complaint made by

Mr. Hem Bahadur on the basis of which action was taken by Bachpan

Bachao Andolan and Delhi Commission for Women. In the said

complaint, it is mentioned that Mr. Hem Bahadur’s sister, sister-in-

law and two other friends were enticed to come to Delhi. It is further

2009:DHC:255-DB

stated that Mr. Hem Bahadur has tried to get in touch with Mr. Ajay

Thapa alias Ajay Singh on his mobile numbers to know the

whereabouts of the said persons but Mr. Ajay Thapa avoided giving

details and even gave wrong numbers.

4. Mr. Hem Bahadur, it is admitted by the learned counsel

appearing for Delhi Police, is missing since 15^th January, 2009.

Learned counsel also admits that no effective steps have been taken

to locate and find out whereabouts of Mr. Hem Bahadur. However, it

is claimed that this is on account of non-availability of photograph and

description of Mr. Hem Bahadur.

5. The approach and the explanation given by Delhi Police cannot

be accepted. Serious allegations were made by Mr. Hem Bahadur in

his complaint and it is the duty and responsibility of Delhi Police to

further investigate and locate Mr. Hem Bahadur. Even with regard to

the rescued children/women, the approach of Delhi Police has been

completely lackadaisical. It is apparent that they have not realised

the sensitivity and efforts which have to be made to stem crime

relating to exploitation of children and females. Virtually no

investigation has been done with reference to various provisions of

the Indian Penal Code, 1960 and various other enactments

mentioned above. The Standard Operating Procedures prescribed

by the Government of India have been given complete go-bye. We

2009:DHC:255-DB

are not s