Telangana High Court
Kothakonda Aishwarya Kottakonda ... vs The State Of Telangana on 5 January, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.9020 OF 2022
Between:
Kothakonda Aishwarya @
Kottakonda Aishwarya. ... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & another
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 05.01.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 9020 of 2022
% Dated 05.01.023
# Kothakonda Aishwarya @
Kottakonda Aishwarya. ...Petitioners
And
$ The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & another
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar.
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2013 SCC OnLine Jhar 766
2 2011 SCC OnLine Guj 5030
3 2014 SCC OnLine Ker 1801
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9020 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.2205 of 2021 on the file of II
Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIX Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri for the
offences under Sections 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act')
against the petitioner/A1.
2. The facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent, who
is the volunteer in District Child Protection Unit, Medchal
District, conducts operations along with others to save child
labour in pursuance of Operation Muskan. On credible
information, the 2nd respondent along with team deployed
for Operation Muskan, conducted search for rescuing the
children employed as laborers. On 09.07.2021, the rescue
team went to Everbest Foods Company, Subhash Chandra
Nagar, Kushaiguda and found girls working in the company.
On enquiry, four girls disclosed that they are aged 17 years,
one girl 16 years and another girl 14 years.
3. The police, having investigated the case, filed charge
sheet for the offences under Sections 75 and 79 of the Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the provisions under Sections 75 and 79 of the Act are not
maintainable. The statements of the six witnesses, who are
children, stated that they were working due to financial
problems and unable to go to school due to Carona
pandemic. They were working as sales girls in Kushaiguda
Market, where Everbest Foods Company is situated. The
company personnel pick up the girls in a van, give Masalas
and they get down in one area and move from house to
house and Kirana shops selling those Masalas as sales girls.
In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments
reported in the cases of; i) Vikram Sinha v. State of
Jharkhand1; ii) Virendra K.Malik v. State of Gujarat2; iii)
Ramla Chalil and others v. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kunnathunadu3
2013 SCC OnLine Jhar 766
2011 SCC OnLine Guj 5030
2014 SCC OnLine Ker 1801
5. For the sake of convenience, Sections 75 and 79 of the
Act are extracted hereunder:
"75.Punishment for cruelty to child:- Whoever, having
the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons,
abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or
procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed
or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary
mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with
fine of one lakh rupees or with both:
Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment
of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances
beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such
abandonment is not willful and the penal provisions of this
section shall not apply in such cases:
Provided further that if such offence is committed by any
person employed by or managing an organisation, which is
entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be
punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to
five years, and fine which may extend up to five lakhs rupees:
Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if
the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental
illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks or
has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with
rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which
may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine
of five lakhs rupees."
79.Exploitation of a child employee: Notwithstanding
anything contained in any law for the time being in force,
whoever ostensibly engages a child and keeps him in bondage
for the purpose of employment or withholds his earnings or
uses such earning for his own purposes shall be punishable
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five
years and shall also be liable to fine of one lakh rupees.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, the term
"employment" shall also include selling goods and services, and
entertainment in public places for economic gain."
6. In the present case, on the basis of the complaint,
crime was registered. Even according to the witnesses, who
formed the team 'Operation Muskan' also stated that when
they went to the premises, they found six girls and they
have not revealed the details. However, according to the
Team, they were employed in the company. The children
who were examined as LW's 9 to 14, stated that due to
Corona pandemic, they were working for the company as
sales girls to make ends meet. Further they stated that they
went from door to door selling masalas.
7. Section 75 of the Act provides for punishment, if any
person having control over a child, assaults, abandons,
abuses, exposes or willfully neglects the child or procures
the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or
neglected, resulting in mental or physical suffering of the
child. Even according to the Team, none of them state
about any such acts as required under Section 75 of the
Act. The witnesses did not speak about any assault by the
accused or abandoning or they the children were abused or
neglected in any manner causing physical or mental
suffering. When none of the ingredients of Section 75 of the
Act are attracted, the proceedings against the petitioner
have to be quashed.
8. Section 79 of the Act prescribes punishment for the
acts of ostensibly engaging a child and keeping him in
bondage for the purpose of employment or withholding his
earnings or using such earning for one's own purposes.
There are no such allegations in the entire set of documents
filed under section 207 CRPC before the Trial Court. For the
said reasons, the prosecution against the petitioner cannot
be maintained for the offence under section 79.
9. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner/A1
in C.C.No.2205 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior
Civil Judge-cum-XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad at Malkajgiri for the offences under Sections 75
and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act 2015, are hereby quashed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a
sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.01.2023
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9020 OF 2022
Date: 05.01.2023.
kvs
