The Supreme Court of India adjudicated on two connected appeals concerning allegations of wrongful confinement and human trafficking of a domestic worker. The key issues included the quashing of criminal proceedings against Ajay Malik, the discharge of co-accused Ashok Kumar, and the legal protection of domestic workers. The Court ruled in favor of Ajay Malik and Ashok Kumar, quashing the charges against them, while emphasizing the need for legislative reforms to safeguard domestic workers' rights.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
  • Section 343 – Wrongful Confinement for more than three days
  • Section 370 – Human Trafficking
  • Section 120B – Criminal Conspiracy
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
  • Section 164 – Recording of statements by Magistrate
  • Section 227 – Discharge of Accused
  • Section 320 – Compounding of Offences
  • Section 482 – Inherent Powers of the High Court
• Constitution of India
  • Article 142 – Supreme Court’s Power to Pass Orders for Complete Justice

Keywords

Domestic worker rights, wrongful confinement, human trafficking, quashing of FIR, criminal conspiracy, compounding of offences, social justice, legislative framework for domestic workers.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation

• The case arises from FIR No. 60/2017 registered against Ajay Malik and others for allegedly wrongfully confining and trafficking a domestic worker.
• Two appeals were filed:
  • Ajay Malik’s appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 441/2025) challenged the Uttarakhand High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings against him.
  • State of Uttarakhand’s appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 442/2025) contested the High Court’s decision to discharge co-accused Ashok Kumar.

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?

• Ajay Malik (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 441/2025) sought quashing of the FIR, Chargesheet, and trial proceedings against him.
• State of Uttarakhand (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 442/2025) sought reinstatement of charges against Ashok Kumar.
• Ashok Kumar (Respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 442/2025) defended the High Court’s decision to discharge him.

3. Reason for Filing the Case

• The complainant, a tribal woman from Chhattisgarh, alleged she was lured to Delhi for work, placed through a fraudulent placement agency, and later wrongfully confined at Ajay Malik’s residence while he was away.
• She later filed an affidavit stating she had no grievance against Ajay Malik and had never been trafficked or confined.
• Despite this, the High Court refused to quash proceedings against Malik and rejected his compounding application.

4. What Has Been Already Decided Until Now?

• The High Court of Uttarakhand:
  • Rejected Ajay Malik’s plea for quashing the FIR and proceedings, citing a prima facie case under Section 370 IPC (Human Trafficking).
  • Allowed Ashok Kumar’s discharge on the grounds that there was no direct allegation or evidence against him.

Issues:

1. Whether the High Court correctly rejected Ajay Malik’s plea for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
2. Whether the compounding of offences against Ajay Malik was permissible despite Section 370 IPC being non-compoundable.
3. Whether the High Court rightly discharged Ashok Kumar from criminal proceedings.
4. Whether domestic workers in India have adequate legal protection and if the judiciary should intervene.

Submissions/Arguments:

Ajay Malik’s Counsel

• The complainant’s own affidavit negated any wrongful confinement or trafficking allegations.
• The High Court failed to consider alternative exits from the residence, meaning the complainant was never confined.
• The charges were based on vague allegations and lacked mens rea (criminal intent).
• The Placement Agency was responsible for any exploitation, not Ajay Malik.

Ashok Kumar’s Counsel

• Ashok Kumar was only a neighbor who held a spare key for safety and had no role in the alleged confinement.
• The FIR and witness statements did not name him.
• The High Court was correct in discharging him, as no material evidence linked him to the offence.

State of Uttarakhand’s Counsel

• The complainant’s initial FIR and statements under Section 164 CrPC alleged wrongful confinement.
• The Recovery Memo confirmed she was locked inside the residence.
• Section 370 IPC is a serious offence and non-compoundable, so the High Court was justified in refusing to quash proceedings against Ajay Malik.

Decision:

1. Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings Against Ajay Malik

• The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and Chargesheet against Ajay Malik, holding that:
  • The allegations lacked prima facie evidence of wrongful confinement or trafficking.
  • The complainant had access to an alternate exit.
  • She was provided a mobile phone, contradicting the claim of confinement.
  • Her sworn affidavit disclaimed any wrongdoing by Ajay Malik.

2. Compounding of Offences

• The Court declined to rule on the compounding issue, as it had already quashed the case.

3. Discharge of Ashok Kumar

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge Ashok Kumar, noting that:
  • He was not initially named in the FIR.
  • His only role was holding a spare key, and there was no evidence of wrongful intent.

4. Legal Protection for Domestic Workers

• The Court highlighted the lack of legal protections for domestic workers.
• It directed the Government of India to form an Expert Committee to examine the feasibility of enacting a Domestic Workers Protection Law.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Wrongful Confinement Requires Complete Restraint – Since the complainant had an alternate exit, Section 343 IPC was not applicable.
2. Trafficking Requires Exploitation – No evidence of forced labor or exploitation by Ajay Malik was established.
3. Compounding Not Necessary If Offence Is Non-Existent – Since no prima facie offence existed, the issue of compounding was irrelevant.
4. Judicial Activism in Social Welfare – The lack of domestic workers' legal protection warranted Court intervention to direct policy reform.

Conclusion and Directions:

• The Supreme Court:
  1. Allowed Ajay Malik’s appeal, quashing the FIR, Chargesheet, and proceedings.
  2. Dismissed the State’s appeal, upholding Ashok Kumar’s discharge.
  3. Directed the Government to form an Expert Committee to study the need for a Domestic Workers Protection Law.