Supreme Court: In a set of two criminal appeals preferred by the accused and the State against Uttarakhand High Court’s decisions for compounding and quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused/ appellant, and allowing the co-accused’s application for discharge from allegations of wrongfully confining and trafficking of a female domestic worker—the complainant, the Division Bench of Surya Kant* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. allowed the accused’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s decision considering that no prima facie offence under Section 370 and Section 343 of the IPC was made out, as there was no evidence of neglect or exploitation of the complainant. The Bench also dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision discharging the co-accused.
Domestic workers’ lacking legal protection in India
The Bench said that despite the growing demand, this indispensable workforce has also been the most vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Domestic workers often belong to marginalised communities, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Economically Weaker Sections and are compelled to undertake domestic work due to financial hardship or displacement, further reinforcing their vulnerability.
The Court observed that there is a legal vacuum which exists vis-à-vis the rights and protection of domestic workers. Indeed, domestic workers in India remain largely unprotected and without any comprehensive legal recognition. As a result, they frequently endure low wages, unsafe environments, and extended hours without effective recourse.
The Court highlighted that there are Bills that have never materialized into tangible laws or policies, such as the Domestic Workers (Conditions of Employment) Bill, 1959; House Workers (Conditions of Service) Bill, 1989; Housemaids and Domestic Workers (Conditions of Service and Welfare) Bill, 2004; Domestic Workers (Registration, Social Security and Welfare) Bill, 2008; Domestic Workers (Decent Working Conditions) Bill, 2015; Domestic Workers Welfare Bill 2016; Domestic Workers (Regulation of Work and Social Security) Bill, 2017.
Further, the Court acknowledged that in recent years certain positive developments aimed at improving the legal and social status of domestic workers in India have been made. These developments, signal recognition of the need to address the systemic neglect faced by this workforce. The Code on Wages, 2019, introduces provisions to address the issue of minimum wages for domestic workers. Moreover, statutes such as the Social Security Code of 2020 replace earlier legislation, including the Unorganized Workers’ Social Security Act of 2008, bringing domestic workers within the ambit of ‘unorganised workers’. The introduction of the e-Shram portal in 2021 has facilitated the creation of a centralised database to identify and register migrant/domestic/unorganised workers, enabling their access to welfare schemes. Tamil Nadu established the Tamil Nadu Domestic Workers Welfare Board in 2007 under the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Work) Act, 1982. The Board administers various social security benefits, including education assistance, marriage assistance, delivery assistance, accidental death compensation, and pensions. These benefits are provided through monetary compensation at fixed rates. Maharashtra has enacted the Maharashtra Domestic Workers Welfare Board Act, 2008, creating District Domestic Labour Welfare Boards with tripartite representation from employers, employees, and the government. This Act allows domestic workers to voluntarily register to access social security benefits, including maternity and child care, education assistance, and medical expense reimbursement. Similarly, Kerala introduced the Kerala Domestic Workers (Regulation and Welfare) Bill, 2021 to protect, regulate, and improve the welfare of domestic workers.
In light of the doctrine of parens patriae, the Court said that it is imperative that the Legislature takes steps towards ensuring an equitable and dignified life for domestic workers. The Court directed the Ministry of Labour and Employment in tandem with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to jointly constitute a Committee comprising subject experts to consider the desirability of recommending a legal framework for the benefit, protection and regulation of the rights of domestic workers. The composition of the Expert Committee has been left to the wisdom of the Government of India and its Ministries. It will be appreciated if the Committee submits a Report within 6 months, whereupon the Government of India may consider the necessity of introducing a legal framework which may effectively address the cause and concerns of domestic workers.
Background
The complainant, belonging to a financially disadvantaged family from a Scheduled Tribe in her search for employment to support her family, came to Delhi in 2009. The accused recruited the complainant to work as a domestic help at his official residence. The accused at the time was serving as a Scientist at the Defence Electronics Application Laboratory, Defence Research and Development Organization under the Ministry of Defence (DRDO). The accused on 22-03-2017, departed from his residence with his entire family, for official duty at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Kanpur. During their absence, the complainant was left behind, the main entry to which was locked. A spare key to the home was given to the accused’s friend and neighbour (co-accused) who visited regularly to provide the complainant with drinking water and to keep watch on her. The complainant contacted the Police Authorities on 29-03-2017, to register a complaint of wrongful confinement.
The Police entered the premises and rescued the complainant. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged against four individuals for offence under Sections 343 and 370 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
Vide, the impugned judgment in the accused’s case, the High Court firstly rejected the compounding application, stating that a prima facie case under Section 370 of the IPC was made out against him, which is a non-compoundable offence under the aegis of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’). Secondly, the High Court also quashed his application under Section 482 of the CrPC on merits, holding that the chargesheet and witness testimonies combined made out prima facie allegations of wrongful confinement against him. Hence, the present appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 441/2025) by him.
In the co-accused’s case, the Magistrate took cognizance of the chargesheet for offence under Sections 343 and 120-B of the IPC. In the discharge application before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, under Section 227 of the CrPC, the same was rejected, having found prima facie evidence that he had held the keys to the residence wherein the complainant was wrongfully confined. Vide, the impugned decision, the High Court allowed the criminal revision application, quashing the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR qua him. Hence, the appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 442/2025) by the State.
Analysis and Decision
The correctness of the High Court’s decision rejecting the accused’s application for quashing criminal proceedings
Regarding the alleged offence of wrongful confinement under Section 343 of the IPC, the Court said that this offence requires the satisfaction of two prongs: (i) the voluntary restraint of any person; and (ii) the act being done in a manner such that it prevents the said person from proceeding beyond circumscribing limits. Perusing the High Court’s judgment, the Court said that an alternative exit was available to the complainant, allowing her to freely enter and exit the premises. The Court also said that the mobile phone allegedly left by the accused with the complainant, and subsequently recovered by the police, raised questions about the plausibility of wrongful confinement. The Court also added that if the accused intended to confine her or restrict her within circumscribed limits, he wouldn’t have provided the complainant with a means of communication, allowing her to contact others at her will. A temporary pass was also issued to the complainant by the DRDO Colony, where the accused’s residence is located. Therefore, the Court held that the offence under Section 343 of the IPC was not disclosed.
On allegations of trafficking and exploitation under Section 370 of the IPC, the Court said that considering the extenuating circumstances of the complainant’s statement that her neighbours brought her to Delhi and handed her over to a person, who subsequently sent her to work in various cities, withheld her rightful earnings, and consistently denied her requests to return home; the only mention of accused in her statement to his alleged refusal to send her home until alternative arrangements were made; the no-objection affidavit submitted by the complainant before the High Court as part of his Compounding Application, elucidated that the Complainant had no grievances against Ajay Malik and unequivocally asserted that she was neither trafficked nor wrongfully confined by him; this allegation lacked any substantial merit.
Furthermore, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Court noted that the complainant filed an additional affidavit reiterating that she was never wrongfully confined or trafficked by the accused and affirmed that she was always treated with dignity and respect. In light of the fact that the accused employed the complainant through the Placement Agency for domestic work at his residence in Dehradun and that her wages were regularly paid to her through the Agency, the Court said that this highlighted that the only agreement between the accused and agency head/ other accused was the employment of the complainant as domestic help at the former’s residence. Hence, the Court held that the offence under Section 120-B of the IPC was highly speculative and deserved to be rejected at the threshold.
The Court said that the complainant’s actions were driven by a fear of exploitation and abuse by her neighbours and agency head, allegations against whom are more serious. The Court stated that this fear likely led her to file a complaint, a means of escaping her situation. Therefore, the Court held that the High Court’s impugned decision of refusing to quash the FIR and proceedings was unsustainable.
The correctness of rejecting Compounding Application
At the outset, the Court stated that Section 370 of the IPC, being a serious offence, did not find a place on the Schedule attached to Section 320 of the CrPC and was thus classified as a non-compoundable offence. The Court agreed with the High Court’s rejection of Compounding Application owing to the non-compoundable nature of alleged offences, however, the Court held that this issue was nonetheless rendered academic given the conclusion in the previous issue, which led to the rejection of the High Court’s view.
State’s challenge against discharge of co-accused
“The discharge stage acts as a critical filter to eliminate cases lacking legal merit, sparing the accused from unnecessary proceedings, while ensuring that credible cases proceed to trial. Thus, discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC is justified when the material on record fails to disclose a prima facie case against the accused to proceed for trial. The legislative spirit behind this provision envisions the rights of the accused being balanced with public interest, so as to ultimately prevent abuse of the legal process.”
Firstly, the Court pointed out that there was no direct allegation against him made by the complainant herself. Neither the FIR nor the complainant’s statements disclosed any explicit, illegal act on the part of the co-accused. Secondly, the co-accused was not named in the original FIR and was only added by way of a Supplementary Chargesheet by the Investigating Officer, seemingly as an after-thought. Thirdly, there was no evidence to suggest that he ever visited the premises or was aware and acting in furtherance of any wrongful confinement of the complainant. Thus, the Court upheld the correctness of the High Court’s order discharging the co-accused.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
