8 hrs ago
High Court Refuses Relief to Couple in Child Labour Case
A court considered a case involving a 15-year-old girl who stayed with a married couple.
Investigators said she was made to do household work and was paid Rs 1,500 a month.
The couple said they were helping her because she had serious problems at home.
They said the girl was not an employee and had not been forced to work.
The girl was rescued from their flat by a Childline team.
Her first statement and later statement were different.
Because of these differences, the high court said it could not decide the truth immediately.
The trial court will now examine the evidence and decide whether this was child labour or charitable shelter.
The Calcutta High Court refused to quash proceedings against a couple accused of making a 15-year-old girl perform domestic work.
The girl was rescued from the couple’s flat by a Childline team on November 30, 2022.
Prosecutors alleged she was confined, made to perform heavy household chores and paid Rs 1,500 monthly, along with food and accommodation.
The couple said they gave the girl shelter because of family difficulties and denied employing or mistreating her.
The court said conflicting statements raised factual issues that must be examined during trial, not at the quashing stage.
- Who
- The Calcutta High Court, a married couple, a 15-year-old girl, the state, police and a Childline team.
- What
- The high court dismissed the couple’s plea to quash criminal proceedings connected to allegations of child labour, confinement and intimidation.
- Where
- The girl was rescued from the couple’s flat in West Bengal.
- When
- The girl was rescued and the case was registered on November 30, 2022; the chargesheet was filed on December 9, 2022; the court issued its decision on August 28.
- Why
- The court found that conflicting statements and disputed evidence required examination by the trial court.
Prosecution and State
Couple’s Defense
Nature of the arrangement
Prosecution and State
The girl was allegedly employed for domestic work, including caring for the couple’s children and performing heavy household chores, in exchange for payment, food and accommodation.
Couple’s Defense
The couple denied employing her and said they provided food and shelter because she faced serious family difficulties and had nowhere to go.
Possible exploitation
Prosecution and State
The prosecution relied on the girl’s initial statement, the circumstances of her recovery and allegations of confinement and payment as material supporting the case.
Couple’s Defense
The couple argued that any household work was voluntary and motivated by gratitude or affection, not forced labour, cruelty or abuse.
Whether the case should continue
Prosecution and State
The state said the conflicting statements created factual questions that could not be resolved through a preliminary quashing petition or a mini-trial.
Couple’s Defense
The couple argued that the allegations did not satisfy the requirements of Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act and sought to end the proceedings.
Key facts
- Accused
- A married couple whose names were not provided in the article
- Child’s age
- 15 years
- Rescue date
- November 30, 2022
- Alleged payment
- Rs 1,500 per month, along with food and accommodation
- Chargesheet date
- December 9, 2022
- Legal provisions
- Indian Penal Code Sections 342, 506 and 34; Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; and Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
- Court outcome
- The plea was dismissed, an earlier interim stay was vacated, and the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously
Quotes
Calcutta High Court
The constitutional court hearing the couple’s criminal revision petition
“The administration of criminal jurisprudence within a constitutional democracy requires a very careful and balanced approach. On one hand, the courts have a duty to protect vulnerable people, especially children and minors, from exploitation, abuse, and illegal treatment, while on the other hand, higher courts also have an equally important duty to protect innocent individuals from false, unnecessary, or harassing criminal cases that misuse the legal process.”
indianexpress.com
“Defence arguments, no matter how convincing they look right now, cannot be tested, weighed, or accepted by this Court under Section 482.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
High Court Restores Two Children To Mother After Refusal
Calcutta High Court Upholds Acquittal in Caste-Related Marriage Case
Kerala HC Rules POCSO Overrides Muslim Marriage Law
Kerala High Court denies relief to mother-in-law over dowry harassment
Gauhati High Court Refuses Relief to Rape Accused
Two Years After RG Kar Doctor's Rape-Murder, Case Remains Unresolved
ED widens Chhattisgarh probes with two arrests and searches
Delhi High Court Orders Madhya Pradesh to Pay Advocate Dues
Haryana sanitation workers’ strike puts BJP government under pressure
Orissa High Court Says Brothel Customers Cannot Face Trafficking Charges
