Madras HC Refuses To Quash Trafficking Case Over Alleged Attempt To Take 3 Minor Girls From Gudalur To Kerala

In brief

The question

Whether the final report and proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 1 of 2025 should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the grounds raised by the petitioners

The court held

The High Court dismissed the petition to quash Spl. S.C. No. 1 of 2025 and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions, leaving the petitioners at liberty to raise their grounds before the trial court

It also directed

Their personal appearance was dispensed with, subject to representation by counsel upon filing an appropriate application; they were required to appear for furnishing of copies, framing of charges, questioning under Section 351 BNSS, and pronouncement of judgment

01Facts

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were involved in taking minor girls from Gudalur to Kerala for domestic work.

The case included an allegation that, on 15 June 2024, petitioners 2 to 4 came to Gudalur and attempted to take three minor girls to Kerala.

Following investigation, a final report was filed and cognizance was taken in Spl. S.C. No. 1 of 2025 for offences under Section 3(1)(h) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 370(5) IPC, and Sections 370(4) read with 109 IPC

pp. 2–3

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, contending that they had no involvement and that no offence under the SC/ST Act was made out

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the final report and proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 1 of 2025 should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the grounds raised by the petitioners

pp. 2, 4–6

ii.Whether the petitioners’ challenges required the High Court to determine disputed facts or assess the evidence before trial

pp. 5–6

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, preserves the High Court’s inherent power; in considering a quash petition, the court examines whether the allegations, accepted at face value, disclose the alleged offences and whether cognizance prerequisites were complied with, but does not ordinarily assess evidentiary validity or resolve disputed facts.

pp. 5–6

The judgment relied on Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2019) 4 SCC 351, and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686, for the principle that witness statements and disputed factual defences are not to be evaluated at the quashing stage.

pp. 5–6

It also relied on M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr., Crl. A. No. 1817 of 2019, decided 2 December 2019, for the principle that the court considers whether the allegations, taken in their entirety, constitute the alleged offences, leaving the proof of those allegations to trial

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 180 Section 351

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 370 Section 109

04Reasoning

The Court examined the final report and witness statements and found specific allegations against the petitioners that, at that stage, were sufficient to attract the offences charged

p. 5

The petitioners’ claims that they were uninvolved and that the SC/ST Act offence was not made out raised matters requiring factual assessment.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court declined to weigh the evidence or resolve those disputed matters in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS

pp. 5–6

It also held that the alleged malicious initiation of proceedings could not be determined at that stage

p. 6