2025 (1) TMI 1611 - SC - Indian Laws

s.482 CrPC quashes proceedings for lack of evidence; s.320 compounding academic; discharge for no mens rea; policy left to legislature

The SC held that the HC erred in refusing to quash proceedings against one accused under s.482 CrPC, finding no prima facie evidence and that the ... Wrongful confinement and trafficking of a female domestic worker—the Complainant - powers of High Court u/s 482 of the CrPC in rejecting Ajay Malik’s quashing petition - rejection of Compounding Application moved by Ajay Malik and supported by the Complainant - corretness in accepting Ashok Kumar’s Criminal Revision, thereby discharging him from the captioned criminal proceedings - existing legal framework in India sufficiently protects the rights of domestic workers or not. Whether the High Court acted well within the contours of its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC in rejecting Ajay Malik’s quashing petition? - HELD THAT:- The Complainant’s primary grievance lies in the unfair treatment she received from Subhash, Mohan Ram, and Shambhu. At this juncture, it is important to note that the allegations against these three co-accused are significantly more serious and grave, considering that charges have been filed against them under Sections 370, 373 and 376 of the IPC. The Placement Agency run by Shambhu could be described as a deceptive front, supposedly aimed at the welfare of tribal girls, but in reality, it perpetuates their abuse and exploitation. This dubious operation seems to be the root cause of the Complainant’s suffering, with Ajay Malik having been included in the FIR without substantial justification. The Complainant's actions were driven by a fear that should she leave Ajay Malik's employment, as she had done in previous jobs in different cities, she would once again fall under the control of the Placement Agency, which would subject her to further exploitation and abuse. This fear likely led her to lodge the complaint as a means of escaping her situation. This sequence of events aligns with the Complainant's subsequent and consistent stance thereafter, in which she asserts that Ajay Malik and his family did not wrongfully confine or exploit her. Furthermore, she has expressed a desire for the proceedings against Ajay Malik, who is a retired senior citizen now, to be quashed. In light of the absence of any prima facie evidence of wrongdoing by Ajay Malik; the vague and omnibus claims made in the FIR and subsequently the Chargesheet; and the Complainant's consistent stance to compound and settle the dispute, we are unable to concur with the High Court's conclusion in the Impugned Judgement, which otherwise constitutes a fit case for quashing. Whether the High Court fell in error in rejecting the Compounding Application moved by Ajay Malik and supported by the Complainant? - HELD THAT:- Section 320 of the CrPC provides for the compounding of offences, and its appended Schedule lists the various criminal offences that may be compounded or settled by and between the parties under the Court's supervision. In the facts of the instant case, the FIR against Ajay Malik was registered under Sections 343 and 370 of the IPC. Incontrovertibly, Section 370 IPC, being a serious offence, does not find a place on the Schedule attached to Section 320 of the CrPC and is thus classified as a non-compoundable offence. It is inclined to agree with the High Court’s rejection of Ajay Malik’s Compounding Application owing to the non-compoundable nature of alleged offences, this issue is nonetheless rendered academic given our conclusion in the previous issue, where we have rejected the High Court’s view regarding Ajay Malik’s quashing application. Therefore, while we may not need to delve into this issue, it must be underscored that a delicate balance ought to be struck in cases wherein the parties seek compounding of the offences. Though well-intentioned, an excessively moralistic order may unnecessarily prolong criminal proceedings, which have no logical conclusion and only serve to further distress the parties. Accordingly, the correctness of the High Court’s decision to disallow Ajay Malik’s Compounding Application does not require our consideration on merits. Whether the High Court was legally correct in accepting Ashok Kumar’s Criminal Revision, thereby discharging him from the captioned criminal proceedings? - HELD THAT:- The sum of the allegations against Ashok Kumar is that he held the key to the residence where the Complainant was allegedly wrongfully confined. While it is already negated the claims of wrongful confinement against Ajay Malik based on the High Court's finding regarding the alternative exit available to the Complainant, certain additional mitigating circumstances may be observed in the case of Ashok Kumar. Firstly, there is no direct allegation against him made by the Complainant herself. Neither the FIR nor the Complainant's statements disclose any explicit, illegal act on Ashok Kumar's part. Secondly, Ashok Kumar was not named in the original FIR, and was only added by way of a Supplementary Chargesheet by the Investigating Officer, seemingly as an after-thought. This hasty inclusion lacks any substantive justification. Thirdly, while Ashok Kumar was delivered the keys by Ajay Malik and held them as a favor to him, there is no evidence to suggest that he ever visited the premises or was aware and acting in furtherance of any wrongful confinement of the Complainant. There are no hesitation in upholding the correctness of the reasoned order of the High Court, in allowing the discharge of Ashok Kumar from the criminal proceedings. Given the demonstrable lack of any mens rea or intent on the part of Ashok Kumar, apart from the lack of any direct involvement, his discharge is well-founded and warrants no interference by this Court. Whether the existing legal framework in India sufficiently protects the rights of domestic workers? - HELD THAT:- This Court has repeatedly stepped in and laid down interim guidelines to protect vulnerable groups who were utterly unprotected due to legal gaps. That being said, we do not presently deem it appropriate to lay down an interim legal code which would govern the working conditions of domestic workers. We say so, being cognizant of the factum that ordinarily, the judiciary should not stray too far out of bounds, and expressly interfere in the legislative domain. The democratic setup of this country may be likened to a tripartite machine, fueled by the doctrine of separation of powers, without which it’s functioning shall surely come to a grinding halt. Appeal disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the High Court properly exercised its powers under Section 482 CrPC in refusing to quash criminal proceedings against the employer accused for alleged wrongful confinement, trafficking and criminal conspiracy. 2. Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the compounding application supported by the complainant where offences alleged included non-compoundable offences under Section 370 IPC. 3. Whether the High Court erred in allowing the criminal revision and discharging the neighbour/key-holder accused from proceedings where he possessed the premises' keys and was alleged to have aided confinement. 4. Whether the existing Indian legal framework adequately protects the rights of domestic workers and what remedial administrative/legislative measures are appropriate. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Correctness of rejecting quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC Legal framework: High Courts' inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are broad but to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice; grounds for quashing include mala fide complaints, absence of prima facie offence, civil character of dispute, vague/omnibus allegations, or compounding willingness. Precedent treatment: Established principles require prima facie scrutiny at threshold but not a trial-level appraisal; quashing is appropriate where no prima facie case exists. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined each charge alleged against the employer accused-Section 343 IPC (wrongful confinement), Section 370 IPC (trafficking), and Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy)-against the record: FIR, recovery memo, Section 164 statement, site plan, presence of an alternate exit, temporary passes, and the complainant's sworn no-objection affidavits/recantations. The existence of an alternative exit, the provision of a mobile phone to the complainant, temporary colony passes and the complainant's consistent repudiation of confinement and trafficking materially undermined the establishment of the essential elements of wrongful confinement and trafficking. On conspiracy, the record lacked any manifest agreement or physical manifestation of a common design to commit the alleged offences; interactions between employer and placement agency related only to hiring and wage disbursal through the agency. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where material on record does not disclose ingredients of alleged offences and complainant under oath denies wrongdoing by accused, High Court's power under Section 482 may be exercised to quash proceedings to prevent futile trial. Obiter - observations about broader patterns of exploitation by placement agencies and policy concerns regarding domestic workers' protection. Conclusion: The High Court erred in refusing quashing; no prima facie case was made out against the employer accused on Sections 343, 370 or 120B IPC, and proceedings against him were quashed as an exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and needless trial. Issue 2 - Rejection of compounding application Legal framework: Section 320 CrPC and its Schedule govern compounding of offences; certain offences (including those under Section 370 IPC) are statutorily non-compoundable. Precedent treatment: Courts must respect statutory non-compoundability; compounding cannot be permitted for offences expressly excluded by the Schedule. Interpretation and reasoning: The complainant executed a no-objection affidavit seeking compounding; nevertheless, because the FIR included a Section 370 allegation (non-compoundable), the High Court's rejection of compounding was in line with statutory limits. However, given the Court's quashing conclusion on merits (absence of prima facie case), the compounding issue became academic in this instance. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - statutory non-compoundability precludes judicial compounding of Section 370 offences where such offence is genuinely alleged. Obiter - caution that overly moralistic refusal to allow settlement may need balanced application where proceedings are otherwise shown to be without substance. Conclusion: High Court's rejection of compounding per Section 320 CrPC is legally defensible, but the point is rendered academic by the quashing of proceedings for lack of prima facie case. Issue 3 - Correctness of discharging neighbour/key-holder accused on criminal revision Legal framework: Discharge under Section 227 CrPC is appropriate where record/documents do not disclose sufficient ground for proceeding to trial; discharge stage is a filter against meritless prosecution. Precedent treatment: At discharge stage, absence of mens rea, lack of direct allegation in FIR/Section 164 statement, and post-hoc inclusion by supplementary chargesheet are relevant in evaluating sufficiency of material. Interpretation and reasoning: Material indicated that the key-holder was not named in original FIR or in the complainant's Section 164 statement; he was added later by supplementary chargesheet. There was no direct allegation of active participation, mens rea, or visits to the premises to facilitate confinement. Moreover, the finding of an alternative exit and the broader conclusion negating wrongful confinement undermined any basis to proceed against the key-holder. Given absence of specific allegations and evidence of involvement, discharge was proper. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - discharge was rightly allowed where material on record failed to disclose a prima facie case against the key-holder; adding an accused by supplementary chargesheet without supporting material cannot sustain trial. Obiter - remarks on prosecutorial caution when supplementing charges without adequate basis. Conclusion: The High Court did not err in allowing criminal revision and discharging the neighbour/key-holder accused; State's challenge lacked merit. Issue 4 - Adequacy of legal protection for domestic workers and remedial measures Legal framework: International instruments (ILO Conventions and Recommendations) recognize domestic workers' vulnerability and address standards; domestic statutory framework in India historically lacks comprehensive protection though recent labour codes and social security schemes have begun partial inclusion. Precedent treatment: Judiciary has in past assumed parens patriae role to protect vulnerable groups where legislative gaps exist, while respecting separation of powers and primacy of Legislature for comprehensive regulation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court analysed international norms and the historical failure to enact central legislation for domestic workers despite multiple Bills. It recognised incremental statutory inclusions (Code on Wages, Social Security Code, e-Shram portal) and state initiatives, but found a persistent legal vacuum leading to exploitation. The Court declined to draft an interim judicial code, stressing that legislative action is the appropriate route, while invoking constitutional powers to direct executive to constitute an expert committee. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - there is a pressing need for a legislative/legal framework to protect domestic workers; the Court may direct formation of an expert committee under executive to frame recommendations. Obiter - detailed comparative and normative discussion of ILO instruments and state legislative attempts, and caution against judicial law-making beyond parens patriae interim measures. Conclusion: Existing legal protection is inadequate; direction issued to relevant Central Ministries to constitute an expert committee to consider a legal framework and report within a specified period to guide legislative/regulatory action. Final Disposition (as derived from Court's conclusions) 1. Quashing of proceedings against the employer accused for lack of prima facie case on wrongful confinement, trafficking and conspiracy grounds. 2. Dismissal of State's challenge and upholding of discharge of the neighbour/key-holder accused. 3. No interference with criminal proceedings against other accused implicated for exploitation by placement agency; those to be decided on merits. 4. Directions to the Government to constitute an expert committee to examine and recommend a legal/regulatory framework for protection and welfare of domestic workers, with a time-bound report.