Delhi District Court
State vs Preet @ Preeti Etc on 20 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (NORTH-
WEST), ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : SH. DEEPAK VATS
STATE Vs. PREET @ PREETI ETC
FIR No. 4-2012
Police Station: Bharat Nagar
Under Section: 374/342/34 IPC, Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 3/14
Child Labour Prohibition Act
Date of institution : 18.12.2012
Date of reserving : 20.01.2025
Date of pronouncement : 20.01.2025
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case Cr. Case 535352/2016
b) Date of commission of offence 02.01.2012 to 06.01.2012
c) Name of the complainant Dev Kumar Yadav s/o Sh. Vinod Yadav
d) Name, parentage and address 1)Smt. Preet @ Preeti Holani, W/o Sh. Dinesh of the accused Holani, 2)Sh. Dinesh Holani S/o Sh.Sh. Abhi-
manyu Holani, both R/o A16/5 2nd Floor, Rana Pratap Bagh, delhi and 3) Bharat Kumar Shahni, S/o Sh. Ram Chander Shahni, R/o Vill. Nesta Mohan Pur PO, Rattanpur, PS Singhwara, Dist.
Darbhanga, Bihar, presently resided at H. No. 483, Pehla Pusta, Usmanpur, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of Section 374/342/34IPC, Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 3/14 Child Labour (Pro-
hibition & Regulation) Act.
f) Plea of the accused persons Plead not guilty Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS Date:
VATS 2025.01.20 17:26:08 +0530 State V Preet @ Preeti Etc. FIR No. 4/2012 PS : Bharat Nagar Page no. 1
g) Final order Acquitted
h) Date of final order 20.01.2025.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, the all the three accused persons have been acquitted of of- fences u/s 374/342/34 IPC, Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 3/14 Child Labour Prohibition Act in this case FIR no. 4/2012 PS Bharat Nagar.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The case of prosecution in a nutshell as unfolded by the police report u/s 173 of code of criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') is that between 02.01.2012 to 06.01.2012, at unknown time, at H no. 16/5, Second Floor, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS- Bharat Nagar, accused persons unlawfully compelled the complainant Dev Yadav aged 14 years to labour against his will and used to assault and treat him in such a manner which was likely to cause him unnec- essary mental and physical sufferings and further voluntarily confined him to work as a domestic help. Hence, the accused persons have allegedly committed offences u/s 342/374/34 IPC, U/s 23 Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and Section 3/4 of Child Labour Prohibition Act.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
3. The accused persons were summoned and copy of chargesheet was supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC. Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
2025.01.20 17:26:12 +0530 State Vs. Sheikh Abdul FIR No. 714/2006 PS : Jahangir Puri Page No.2 CHARGE
4. Vide order dated 27.11.2021, charge under Section u/s 342/374/34 IPC, U/s 23 Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and Section 3/4 of Child Labour Prohibition Act was framed against accused persons 1)Smt. Preet @ Preeti Holani and 2) Sh. Dinesh Holani. Charge u/s 374 r/w Section 109 IPC, 23 JJ Act, 2000 r/w 109 IPC and 3/14 of Child Labour Prohibition Act r/w Section 109 IPC was framed against the accused Bharat Kumar Shahni, and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. The prosecution has cited 12 witnesses to prove its case.
6. PW1: Sh. Rajender Prasad, retired SDM Model Town, Delhi was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 09.01.2012, an intimation was sent by ASI Jagbir Singh PS- Bharat Nagar with respect to rescue of child Labour, who was working as a do- mestic help at house no. A-16/05, Rana Partap Bagh. Further, the IO concerned had visited the property and rescued the child and was brought before PW1 on the same day where his statement was recorded in his presence. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW1/A The witness was cross examined by Ms. Shama Praveen Ld. Counsel for accused persons. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that no such in- cident ever occurred with the juvenile and no mental or physical suffering was com- mited upon the juvenile while working as domestic help.
7. PW2: The complainant himself was examined as PW2. In his examination in chief, he turned hostile and did not testify in favour of the prosecution. He deposed Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2025.01.20 17:26:15 +0530 State V Preet @ Preeti Etc. FIR No. 4/2012 PS : Bharat Nagar Page no. 3 the he was never treated badly and was given proper food, clothes and salary. There- after, Ld. APP for the State sought permission to cross examine the PW2.
In his cross-examination, he correctly identified his signatures on state- ment recorded during investigation i.e. Ex.PW2/A, Seizure memo i.e. Ex. PW2/B, an- other statement Ex. PW1/A and his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC which was exhibited as Ex. PW2/C, however, he denied incriminating contents against the accused persons.
The witness denied the suggestion he had worked for approximately about one month and 8 days and he was beaten by thapki (wooden stick used to clean cloths) and Iron rod by the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that one thapki was seized in his presence alongwith one dusing brush. The witness further de- nied the suggestion that both accused Dinesh Holani and Preeti Holani used to beat him and he(witness) was forced to work from 5.00 AM to 11.00 PM everyday by ac- cused persons.
He denied the suggestion that he was not granted any leave and Rs. 1800/- was his fixed salary or he was locked in the house when accused persons used to go out of their residence. In order to support his family he himself wanted to work and since he belonged to Bihar, he wanted to work at a place where he could also find a shelter.
The witness denied the suggestion that he has been won over by accused persons or that he had settled the case for consideration or that he was deposing in favour of accused in order to save them from conviction.
The witness was cross examined by the Ms. Shama Praveen Ld. counsel for accused wherein he admitted that he was never tortured by any of the accused of that never confined and never forced to do any hazardous act.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK Date:
VATS VATS 2025.01.20 17:26:18 +0530 State Vs. Sheikh Abdul FIR No. 714/2006 PS : Jahangir Puri Page No.4
8. As the main witness of prosecution i.e. the complainant support prosecu- tion's case, PE was closed, recording of statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was dis- pensed with and final arguments were heard.
9. I have heard the submissions of Ms. Sonal Verma, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
10. I have perused the material on record.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
11. Before discussing to the facts of the present case, let us first see what Section 374/342/34 IPC, Section 23 of juvenile Justice Act and 3/4 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulations) Act, 1986 provide:
"Section 374. Unlawful compulsory labour.-- Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
"Section 342:- Punishment for wrongful confinement....Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either de- scription for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both" and "Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides:
Section 23 in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act,2000.
23. Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2025.01.20 17:26:21 +0530 State V Preet @ Preeti Etc. FIR No. 4/2012 PS : Bharat Nagar Page no. 5 .Whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a ju-
venile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be as- saulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both".
12. So far as the allegations of Section 374/342/34 IPC and Section 23 of Ju- venile Justice Act are concerned, the victim Dev Kumar, who was examined as PW2 clearly stated in his examination in court that he was never maltreated or beaten by the accused persons. Rather, he said that apart from salary, he was given proper food and clothes.
In his cross-examination too, when the incriminating contents of state- ment Ex.PW1/A was put to the witness, he clearly denied the same. The witness stated that he sustained injuries by falling from the stairs. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons the witness again stated that he was never tor - tured.
13. Section 374 IPC is provisioned against forced labour, Section 342 pun- ishes wrongful confinement and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides pun- ishment for assaulting , abandoning, exposing or wilfully neglecting the juvenile who has actual charge of the juvenile.
Since the victim PW2 has not supported the case of prosecution regard- ing any forced labour or any maltreatment, none of the provisions of Section 374/342/34 IPC and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act are attracted. The prosecution has not cited any other witnesses of the alleged forced labour, assault, maltreatment by the accused persons. Thus, there is no material against the accused person qua the said offences Section 374/342/34 IPC and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act.
DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK
VATS
VATS Date: 2025.01.20 17:26:24
+0530
State Vs. Sheikh Abdul FIR No. 714/2006 PS : Jahangir Puri Page No.6
14. So far as the offence under Section 3/4 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulations) Act, 1986 is concerned, Section 3 prohibits employment of any child for purposes mentioned in Schedule appended to the Act and Section 14 of the Act pro- vides penalty for contravention of Section 3. Section 2 (ii) of the Act defines child as a person who has not completed his 14 years of age. Thus, a person can be said to be liable for punishment under Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regula- tions) Act, 1986 only when he/she interalia employes a child who is less than 14 years of age.
The child Dev Kumar was aged 14 years at the time of his employment with the accused persons. PW2 Dev Kumar has clearly stated in his examination in chief that he was 14 years of age. Further, the prosecution's case is also that he was 14 years of age at the time of employment with the accused persons. This means that PW2 Dev Kumar had already completed his 14th year when he was employed with the accused persons and thus he does not come within the purview of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulations) Act, 1986. Accordingly, accused persons are entitled for acquittal for offence u/s 3/4 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulations) Act, 1986 also.
15. In the case of "Farooq Abdul Gani vs State of Maharashtra(cr appeal no 315 of 2007, decided on 17/10/11) Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that Section 437A Cr. PC is directory and not mandatory. Further that personal bond may be taken from the accused in compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC. Also, in the case of "Firasat Hussain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2003, DHC) Hon'ble Delhi High Court also held the same. Accordingly, personal bonds u/s 437A Cr. PC of Rs.20,000/- each have been furnished by the accused persons and accepted. Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
2025.01.20 17:26:27 +0530 State V Preet @ Preeti Etc. FIR No. 4/2012 PS : Bharat Nagar Page no. 7
16. Documents, if any be returned to the rightful person. Endorsement, if any be cancelled. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Superdginama if any, be cancelled.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Digitally signed
DEEPAK by DEEPAK VATS
Court on 20.01.2025 VATS Date: 2025.01.20
17:26:31 +0530
(DEEPAK VATS)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (North-West) 20.01.2025 State Vs. Sheikh Abdul FIR No. 714/2006 PS : Jahangir Puri Page No.8