The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a married couple accused of keeping a 15-year-old girl as a domestic help, holding that the case involved disputed questions of fact that could not be conclusively determined at the stage of a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court observed that the case diary contained conflicting versions concerning the circumstances in which the minor girl was staying with the couple. While the prosecution alleged that the girl had been engaged to perform household work and look after the couple's children in return for money, food and accommodation, the couple maintained that they had merely provided her shelter and other assistance because she was facing difficulties in her family. The Court held that deciding which of these versions was correct required appreciation of evidence during a full-fledged trial and could not be undertaken while exercising the High Court's limited jurisdiction to quash proceedings.
The case arose from proceedings initiated against the married couple following the rescue of the 15-year-old girl from their flat at Shapoorji Housing Complex. A Childline team rescued the minor from the premises at around 9:25 PM. The prosecution case was that the girl had been wrongfully confined in the flat and was being made to work as a domestic help. It was alleged that her duties included looking after the couple's children and performing household chores. According to the complaint, the arrangement involved a promised monthly payment of ₹1,500, together with food and accommodation. These allegations subsequently resulted in registration of a criminal case at Techno City Police Station.
The criminal case invoked several provisions against the couple. The police case was registered under Sections 342, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with 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. The allegations therefore concerned wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation and acts allegedly committed jointly, as well as provisions relating to the protection of children and prohibition of child labour. The couple subsequently approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising from the case.
The police investigation proceeded after the case was registered. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, including statements of the minor girl under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet. The material collected during the investigation, including the statements of the girl, became relevant to the High Court's consideration of whether the criminal proceedings could be terminated at the preliminary stage.
The couple's principal defence was that the minor had not been employed as a domestic worker. Their counsel argued that there had never been an employment agreement between the couple and the girl. According to the defence, the girl was experiencing serious difficulties within her family and had approached the couple for shelter. The couple claimed that they provided her with food, accommodation and other assistance purely on humanitarian grounds. On this version, any money given to the girl was described as voluntary assistance rather than wages for work.
The defence therefore disputed the prosecution's description of the arrangement as child labour. According to the couple, there was no employer-employee relationship and no agreement under which the girl was required to work in return for payment. Their case was that the circumstances in which the girl came to stay with them were humanitarian and that the material collected by the police did not establish the offences alleged against them. They accordingly sought exercise of the High Court's power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to bring the proceedings to an end.
The couple also relied upon a decision of the Kerala High Court in A. Nizamuddin v. Station House Officer. Their counsel argued on the basis of that decision that merely employing a child in domestic work would not automatically attract Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act unless there was evidence of bondage, physical cruelty or mental abuse. The defence sought to rely upon this proposition in support of its contention that the allegations against the couple did not justify continuation of the criminal proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court, however, declined to apply that decision as a blanket protection to the accused at the preliminary stage. Justice Uday Kumar observed that the present case contained conflicting material concerning the circumstances in which the girl had been staying with the petitioners. The Court found that the investigation had brought on record two substantially different versions, including versions originating from the minor herself. Because of these conflicting accounts, the Court held that the factual dispute could not be resolved while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
According to the prosecution version contained in the case diary, the girl had been hired to perform household chores and babysitting in exchange for money, food and accommodation. This was the factual foundation of the allegations concerning child labour and the treatment of the minor. The defence version, however, relied upon a subsequent statement of the girl recorded under Section 164 CrPC. According to that statement, she had voluntarily stayed with the couple after seeking shelter because of distress arising from her family circumstances.
The existence of these conflicting versions became central to the High Court's decision. The Court noted that the investigation had produced direct but contradictory accounts concerning the girl's stay with the petitioners. The question whether she was being employed as a domestic worker or was instead being provided humanitarian assistance was therefore a disputed factual issue. The Court described the central question as whether the arrangement constituted “charity” or “illegal child labour” and held that this issue was heavily disputed on the material available.
The Court emphasised the limited nature of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC at the stage of considering a petition for quashing criminal proceedings. It stated that the High Court could not conduct a mini-trial while determining whether a prosecution should continue. The Court held that defence arguments, even if they appeared convincing at that stage, could not be tested, weighed or accepted in the manner required for determining disputed factual questions. Such matters had to be examined by the trial court after the evidence was formally presented.
The High Court specifically observed that assessing the reliability of the minor's statements was not a matter that could appropriately be determined in the quashing proceedings. The girl's statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC contained differences, and determining why those differences existed and which version was reliable required examination of evidence. The Court therefore declined to resolve the contradictions itself. Instead, it held that the trial court would have to examine the statements and the surrounding circumstances during the trial.
The Court also considered the circumstances in which the minor was recovered. The fact that the Childline team recovered her from the petitioners' flat at around 9:25 PM formed part of the preliminary material relied upon by the prosecution. The High Court noted that the initial statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, together with the circumstances surrounding the recovery, constituted prima facie material sufficient to justify continuation of the prosecution. The Court therefore did not find the case appropriate for termination at the quashing stage.
The Court further examined the statutory provisions invoked in the criminal case. It noted that Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act deals with punishment for employment of children in violation of the statutory restrictions. The proceedings also invoked Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which addresses assault, abandonment, abuse or wilful neglect of a child resulting in unnecessary mental or physical suffering. The High Court considered the allegations and the material collected during the investigation sufficient at the preliminary stage to permit the prosecution under the provisions invoked.
The High Court did not make a final determination as to whether the girl had actually been employed as a domestic worker or whether the couple had merely provided her humanitarian assistance. It also did not finally determine the reliability of the competing statements attributed to the girl. Instead, the Court held that these were matters for determination by the trial court. The distinction was important because the High Court's task at this stage was not to decide whether the accused were ultimately guilty or innocent, but to determine whether the criminal proceedings disclosed sufficient preliminary material to continue.
The Court held that the defence version could not be accepted merely on the basis of the material relied upon by the petitioners. Since the prosecution had placed prima facie material before the Court and the investigation had produced conflicting versions that required examination, the proceedings could not be quashed. The Court therefore declined to interfere with the criminal case merely because the accused had offered an alternative explanation for the minor's presence in their home.
The Court reiterated that resolving factual contradictions is ordinarily the function of the trial court. In the present case, that would include examining the circumstances under which the girl came to live with the couple, the nature of the work she allegedly performed, whether money was promised or paid for such work, the significance of the food and accommodation allegedly provided to her, and the circumstances surrounding her recovery. The Court also indicated that the conflicting statements would have to be assessed in the context of the evidence presented during trial.
The High Court further referred to the need to examine the actual environment in which the girl had been staying. The Court stated that determining whether the arrangement amounted to child labour or genuine humanitarian assistance required examination of the circumstances in which the minor was residing at the petitioners' home. Such an examination necessarily involved factual assessment and appreciation of evidence, which could not be undertaken as a substitute for a trial.
The Court therefore concluded that the case diary contained sufficient preliminary material to permit the trial to proceed. The presence of conflicting statements did not provide a ground for quashing the proceedings because those contradictions themselves required adjudication. Instead of treating the differences in the statements as a reason to terminate the case, the High Court considered them evidence of a factual dispute that had to be resolved through the ordinary trial process.
The criminal revision petition filed by the couple was consequently dismissed. The High Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case expeditiously and in accordance with law. At the same time, the trial court was directed to remain uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court in its judgment. This meant that the High Court's findings were confined to the question of whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed at that stage and were not intended to determine the ultimate merits of the prosecution.
The case is titled Sk. Habibur Rahaman & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. and was registered as CRR 1606 of 2024. The petition was considered by Justice Uday Kumar of the Calcutta High Court. The proceedings arose from the Techno City Police Station case involving allegations concerning the minor girl's presence in the petitioners' residence and the nature of the work she was allegedly required to perform there.
The High Court's decision therefore leaves the factual controversy to be examined at trial. The prosecution alleges that the 15-year-old girl was kept as a domestic help and was made to perform household work and look after the couple's children in return for promised payment, food and accommodation. The couple maintains that the girl was not employed but had been given shelter and assistance because of family difficulties. The investigation produced statements supporting both versions, and the Court held that deciding between them would require appreciation of evidence by the trial court.
The Court ultimately found that the material in the case diary was sufficient to allow the prosecution to continue and that the allegations could not be conclusively rejected at the preliminary stage. The High Court therefore refused to exercise its quashing jurisdiction to terminate the criminal proceedings. The trial court has been directed to proceed expeditiously and determine the disputed factual questions in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations contained in the High Court's order.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.