ALICE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is the sole accused in S. C. No. 140/12 pending before the Court of Sessions, Palakkad. In the said case she is being prosecuted under Ss. 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The prosecution case is that three minor girls were found employed in the house of the petitioner herein for hard manual labour, domestic works etc., when the Sub Inspector of Police, Ottappalam conducted a search in the said house on the basis of reliable secret information. The minor girls were taken into custody by the Sub Inspector for the purpose of rescuing them as provided under the Act, and a crime was registered against the petitioner. The said prosecution is sought to be quashed under S. 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that such prosecution under Sections 23 and 26 of the Act is not legally sustainable. The case of the petitioner is that for a prosecution under S. 26 of the Act, there must be allegations of hazardous employment and also exploitation without making proper and adequate wages/salary. On a perusal of the case records including the final report submitted by the police and the statements given by the minor girls to the police during investigation, I find that the prosecution in this case has a definite allegation that the minor girls were found employed for some hard labour and domestic works. Whether it will amount to hazardous job will have to be decided by the Trial Court. Statements given by the minor girls will show that they were not properly or adequately paid by the petitioner herein. Of course, during investigation, it was found that one of the girls is a major, and the other two are aged between 16 years and 18 years. Employing a child below 14 years for any job mentioned in Part-A of the Schedule, to The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, will attract prosecution under S. 3 of the said Act. Of course, in such a prosecution under the said Act involving employment of children below 14 years, the court will not look into the nature of the job as to whether it is hazardous or not, or whether there is any element of exploitation. When a prosecution is brought under the Act, and when such prosecution is specifically under S. 26 of the Act, the prosecution can succeed only when there is a specific and definite allegation that the juvenile was found employed for some hazardous job, without making proper and adequate payment of wages/salary. The term "hazardous" indicates the risk and heaviness of the job. which the age of the child cannot bear. It need not always be some job causing threat to life. In this case, the definite and specific allegation of the prosecution is that minor the girls were found employed for some hard manual labour including domestic works, without making proper and adequate payment of wages/salary.

(2.) While exercising jurisdiction under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal prosecution, the concern of the court must be whether there is some material for the alleged prosecution by way of essential ingredients constituting the alleged offence. If definite and satisfactory materials are there for a prima facie satisfaction regarding the offences alleged and regarding the essential ingredients of such offence, the prosecution will have to proceed, and the accused will have to seek appropriate relief from the trial court. This Court can interfere under S. 482 Cr.P.C. only if such prosecution will amount to abuses of legal or judicial process. The power under S. 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as a weapon to undo legal or judicial proceedings or orders. In view of the definite allegations in this case in the final report and also in the statements given by the minor girls, that they were employed for some hard manual labour including domestic works without proper and adequate salary/wages, the prosecution cannot be quashed under S. 482 Cr.P.C. Whether such allegations are true or false, or whether the petitioner had paid proper and adequate wages to the children, or whether the alleged employment is hazardous or not, will have to be decided by the trial court. This is not a fit case where this Court can exercise jurisdiction under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the prosecution. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed.