AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
This writ petition (criminal) has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
The petitioner has challenged the F.I.R. registered as Ahtu P.S. Case No.03 of 2020 registered under Sections 370(1), 370(4)/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 14(1)(a) of the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Amendment Act, 2016 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.
The F.I.R. was lodged on 11.09.2020 stating therein that police party received information that an agent has collected 50 labourers for taking to Tamil Nadu in which minor girls are also there. The petitioner was recruiting workers for Loyal Textile Mills Garments Co. and he produced all necessary documents. On physical verification, it was found that 53 employees were there in which 43 females and 10 males were there and one minor girl aged 17 years. On enquiry by the police team, the girl was unable to intimate anything about where she is being driven up. Various documents were also seized including bank passbook and Inter State Migrant Workers ID Card. In the F.I.R., it has been stated that Human Trafficking under the pretext of employment in different State are being carried out by the petitioner and others and for that case has been registered under Sections 370(1), 370(4)/34 of the Inidan Penal Code read with Section 14(1A) of the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Amendment Act, 2016.
Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the girl is not minor and she is adolescent and on that ground F.I.R. is fit to be quashed.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State wherein it has been stated at para 7 that during investigation of the case witnesses Ashish Kumar Bhardwaj, Ajit Kumar and Rawan Chandra Pathak also supported the facts alleged in the F.I.R. and in para 4, 5 and 8 of the case diary.
On perusal of F.I.R., it transpires that there is serious allegation against the persons named therein and the witness as disclosed in counter affidavit, has supported the case of the prosecution. This is not the case of interference in the light of judgment rendered in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.