The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a woman booked for human trafficking, who allegedly sold her minor daughter for Rs 15,000 to a…
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a woman booked for human trafficking, who allegedly sold her minor daughter for Rs 15,000 to a couple in Maharashtra as she was unable to maintain herself and her child.
In doing so the court noted that the woman had a "bonafide intention" to get the child adopted, even though the procedure was not followed adding that ingredients of the offence of trafficking were not made out.
Justice K Natarajan allowed the petition filed by one Mandara and quashed the proceedings registered under Section 370 (Trafficking of a Person) read with Section 34 (common intention) IPC and Section 81 (Sale and procurement of children for any purpose) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The FIR registered by the police on March 13, 2019 was based a complaint filed by the one Punith Kumar E., District Child Protection Officer alleging that the petitioner woman had sold her child to accused Nos.2 and 3.
It was alleged that the petitioner is said to have married to one Girish and out of the wedlock, they begot a male child and the petitioner's husband deserted her and the child. Thereafter, it was alleged that she became intimate with another person named Venkatesh and out of that relationship, she delivered a female child on February 24, 2019.
As the petitioner was very poor and unable to maintain herself and her child, she is stated to have sold the child to accused No.3 through accused No.2 for Rs.15,000 and the child was taken to Maharashtra. After receiving the information, the police rescued the child from Mumbai from the custody of accused No.3, FIR was registered and a charge sheet came to be filed, which was under challenge.
The petitioner contended that as she was very poor and doing coolie work she was unable to maintain the child and she decided to sell her child to accused No.3. Since he (accused no 3) had no children for about 14 years, he intended to adopt the child but he had not followed the procedure. It was contended that he had no intention to exploit the child or any other illegal purpose and the High Court had already quashed the criminal proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3; thus the petitioner sought the same relief on the ground of parity.
The prosecution opposed the plea saying as the adoption procedure was not followed, it attracts Section 370 of IPC.
On going through the records the court said, “Of course, there is a violation of JJ Rules i.e., the petitioner has handed over the child to accused No.3 without following the adoption procedure by selling the child for Rs.15,000. However, this Court while quashing the case filed against accused Nos.2 and 3 has categorically held that there no offence under Section 370 of IPC is made out and there is no intention to abduct the child or human trafficking of the child for the purpose of begging etc., by taking the child outside the State. The bona fide intention of accused No.3 is to get the child adopted. There is no criminality to conduct the trial against this petitioner.”
Allowing the plea, the court said, “Therefore, I am of the view that conducting proceedings against petitioner/accused No.1 is liable to be quashed.”
Case Title: Mandara AND State of Karnataka and Anr.
Appearance: Advocate Sharada N for petitioner.
HCGP M M Waheeda for Respondent.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 476
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11370 OF 2024.