Madhya Pradesh High Court Criticises NCPCR Head For Baseless Case Against Christian Missionary Over Adoption Of Children, Quashes FIR

The Jabalpur bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court last week quashed an FIR against christian missionary Dr. Ajai Lall accused of trafficking two children, who were earlier living in an orphanage run by a society of which he was the office bearer, and who were subsequently adopted following a family court order in 2017. In doing so the High Court noted that the adoption of the children was "valid", and that the FIR did not suggest that the ingredients of the offence under Section 370 (Trafficking of person) of the Indian Penal Code were made out. It also said that as the competent court had examined each aspect pertaining to the children while passing the adoption order; therefore the status of the children can't be re-looked based on the "whims" of respondent chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) Priyank Kanoongo, the Court held.A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi in its order said, "In view of the above discourse thereby appreciating the facts & circumstances; gleaned material by the prosecution and also the settled legal position, I am of the opinion that the prosecution of the petitioner (Lall) is sugarcoated with ill-intention and made to belittle his image in the society. In such circumstances, the prosecution cannot be allowed to continue". No material to register Trafficking FIR, children were legally freeThe High Court further said that there was no material available with the prosecution on the basis of which offence under Section 370 of IPC can be registered against Lall. It said that the concerned Family Court had at the time of adoption had to consider the report of the Adoption Committee containing the history of the child and then opined that the "children are legally free". It noted that the adoption committee had given an opinion that the children were "legally free" and that has been accepted by the competent court and "allowed the application for adoption" and this order was "never put to test"."...therefore only because there emerged a doubt in the mind of respondent No.5, his action cannot be held justifiable. Ergo, no offence under Section 370 IPC is made out against the petitioner," the high court ruled. Respondent No. 5 in the plea is Kanoongo. Lall had alleged Kanoongo, by "misusing his authority started pressurizing the statutory authorities"–District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of Police and the officers of the department of Women & Child Welfare for lodging an FIR against the former. Section 80 JJ Act not made out, adoption order not challengedWith respect to the offence alleged against Lall under Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the High Court said that none of the ingredients of the section are available in the case. Section 80 pertains to punitive measures for adoption without following prescribed procedures, punishment under which is imprisonment of which may extend upto three years, or with fine of one lakh rupees, or both. The High Court noted that unless the family court's adoption order passed in favour of the intervenors (adoptive parents) is questioned before the competent court of law and is set aside with a finding that a person or organisation had "violated" the 2015 Act, then only in that eventuality the proceedings consequent to FIR, "can be green-signaled". "However, it is not alleged as to how Section 80 of Act, 2015 came into operation and what violation had been done before making the children available for adoption. Even otherwise, just to bring home the offence, the alleged violation that too after a long lapse of time, cannot be allowed to stand," Justice Dwivedi underscored. BackgroundThe order was passed in Lall's plea seeking quashing of a August 6 communication issued by the concerned Superintendent of Police for disclosing the details of the children who were orphans and were found in the orphanage run by the petitioner. Subsequently, an FIR was registered against under Section 370 IPC and Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice Act, quashing of which was also sought. Lall said that he is the office bearer of 'Aadhaarshila Sansthan', a society which was running two institutions–an orphanage called Bal Bhawan registered under the 2015 Act, and a school–Central India Academy. Lall claimed that both these institutions stood closed–the orphanage was closed in 2023 and children were shifted on direction of the competent authority. The Academy has been closed since academic session 2023-24, he said. The petitioner said that post-adoption report of the two children was sought based on the letters issued by NCPCR. The society replied to the same and furnished the information in January and March this year. However, the information was again sought by the concerned SP in August this year asking that under what circumstance, the children were first found in Bal Bhawan. The communication further sought for documents related...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Criticises NCPCR Head For Baseless Case Against Christian Missionary Over Adoption Of Children, Quashes FIR

Malavika Prasad

Tags