Conflicting victim statements and prima facie evidence preclude quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

The petitioners, a married couple, sought quashing under Sections 482 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of Techno City Police Station Case No. 231 of 2022 and Charge Sheet No. 215 of 2022.

The charge-sheet alleged offences 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.

On 30 November 2022, a Childline team rescued a 15-year-old girl from the petitioners’ flat at approximately 9:25 p.m.

The prosecution alleged that the girl had been confined and employed for domestic work and childcare in return for promised payment, food and accommodation.

During investigation, her statement under Section 161 CrPC allegedly supported the prosecution case, whereas her subsequent statement under Section 164 CrPC presented the stay as voluntary and motivated by the petitioners’ humanitarian assistance.

The petitioners contended that the girl had merely been provided shelter and food due to family distress, and that any household assistance or payment was voluntary and charitable, not employment or forced labour.

Whether the materials collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case under Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, warranting continuation of the prosecution.

Whether the conflicting statements of the minor under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and the petitioners’ defence of humanitarian assistance, could be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Whether the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process warranting quashing under the principles governing the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

The Court applied Sections 482 and 401 CrPC, recognising that quashing at the threshold must be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations and materials fail to disclose any offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 penalises employing or permitting a child to work in violation of the statute.

Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 applies where a person having charge or control of a child assaults, abandons, abuses or wilfully neglects the child in a manner causing unnecessary mental or physical suffering.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or determine the credibility and evidentiary weight of competing statements while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court distinguished A. Nizamuddin v. Station House Officer, 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 7324, which concerned the factual determination of bondage or cruelty and could not operate as a blanket bar against prosecution where such matters remained disputed.

The Court found that the late-night recovery of the minor from the petitioners’ flat, the recovery materials, and the initial statement under Section 161 CrPC supplied prima facie support for the allegation that she was engaged in domestic work in exchange for payment, food and accommodation.

Those circumstances were sufficient, at the preliminary stage, to raise triable questions under Section 14 of the Child Labour Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The subsequent Section 164 statement, which supported the petitioners’ charitable explanation, created a factual conflict rather than conclusively disproving the prosecution case.

Determining whether the girl was voluntarily residing with the petitioners or was confined, exploited or subjected to cruelty required assessment of witness credibility, the surrounding circumstances and the actual conditions in the household—matters reserved for trial and not for a Section 482 proceeding.

Accordingly, the petitioners’ defence and reliance on A. Nizamuddin could not justify quashing the prosecution at that stage.

The criminal revision application, CRR 1606 of 2024, was dismissed.

Any interim stay was vacated, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed expeditiously and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations in the judgment.

There was no order as to costs.