Calcutta High Court Refuses To Quash Child Labour Case Against Couple Accused Of Keeping 15-Year-Old Girl As Domestic Help
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, observing that conflicting statements given by the minor created disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated at the stage of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A Single Bench of Justice Uday Kumar held that the couple's defence that they had merely provided shelter, food and other assistance to the girl due to her family difficulties could not be accepted at the preliminary stage when the case diary contained material suggesting that she was made to perform household work in return for money.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the couple seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of a Techno City Police Station case registered under Sections 342, 506 and 34 of the IPC, 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 prosecution case arose after a Childline team rescued the 15-year-old girl from the petitioners' flat at Shapoorji Housing Complex at around 9:25 PM on November 30, 2022.
According to the complaint, the girl had allegedly been wrongfully confined in the flat and made to work as a domestic help, including looking after the couple's children and performing household chores, in return for a promised monthly payment of ₹1,500 along with food and accommodation.
The police subsequently filed a chargesheet after recording statements of witnesses, including statements of the minor under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC.
'Charity' Or 'Illegal Child Labour' A Disputed Question
The couple's counsel argued that there had never been any employment agreement and that the minor was not hired as a domestic worker.
It was submitted that the girl was facing serious family difficulties and had been provided shelter, food and accommodation out of humanitarian considerations. Any money given to her, it was argued, was voluntary assistance and not wages.
Counsel further relied upon the Kerala High Court's decision in A. Nizamuddin v. Station House Officer, arguing that mere employment of a child in domestic work would not attract Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act unless there was evidence of bondage, physical cruelty or mental abuse.
The High Court, however, held that the decision could not be applied as a blanket shield at the pre-trial stage in the present case.
The Court noted that the case diary contained "two completely different versions" of the circumstances in which the girl was staying with the petitioners.
According to the prosecution version, the girl had been hired to perform household chores and babysitting in exchange for money, food and accommodation. On the other hand, the defence relied upon her subsequent statement under Section 164 CrPC to contend that she had voluntarily stayed with the couple after seeking shelter due to family distress.
"Here, however, the investigation has brought out direct, though conflicting, versions from the victim herself," Justice Kumar observed.
The Court said the central question as to whether the arrangement constituted "charity" or "illegal child labour" was "heavily disputed".
High Court Cannot Conduct Mini-Trial At Quashing Stage
The Bench emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised cautiously and that the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while examining whether a prosecution should proceed.
"Defence arguments, no matter how convincing they look right now, cannot be tested, weighed, or accepted by this Court under Section 482," the Court held.
It added that determining the reliability of the girl's statements, resolving the contradictions between her Section 161 and Section 164 statements and examining the actual circumstances in which she was residing at the petitioners' home were matters for the trial court.
The Court observed that the initial Section 161 statement and the circumstances of the girl's recovery at 9:25 PM constituted prima facie material warranting continuation of the prosecution.
"Checking how reliable witness statements are, resolving the contradictions between the Section 161 and Section 164 statements, examining at the actual environment of the house, and figuring out whether it was child labour or genuine humanitarian help are matters that fall exclusively within the domain of the learned trial court during the crucible of a full-fledged trial," the Court held.
The Court noted that Section 14 of the Child Labour Act penalizes employment of children in violation of the statutory restrictions, while Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act addresses assault, abandonment, abuse or willful neglect of a child resulting in unnecessary mental or physical suffering.
It concluded that the case diary contained sufficient preliminary material to allow the trial to proceed under the invoked provisions.
The Court accordingly dismissed the criminal revision petition and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law, uninfluenced by observations made in the High Court's judgment.
Case: SK. HABIBUR RAHAMAN & ANR. -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Case No: CRR 1606 OF 2024