1. Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2025 INSC 118), addressed wrongful confinement and human trafficking allegations against a government officer and his neighbor, arising from the forced employment of a domestic worker. The Court examined the validity of criminal proceedings, the scope of compounding offenses, and the legal protections available to domestic workers in India.
This judgment is significant as it sets important legal precedents on quashing of criminal cases, the rights of vulnerable workers, and the state’s duty to ensure justice in cases of labor exploitation.
2. Case Background
Facts of the Case
- The case arose from FIR No. 60/2017 (Case Crime No. 94/2017), registered at Rampur Police Station, Dehradun.
- The complainant, a Scheduled Tribe woman from Chhattisgarh, was allegedly trafficked and forced into domestic labor.
- She was moved across multiple locations, eventually working as a housekeeper for Ajay Malik, a DRDO scientist, under a contract with a placement agency.
- The complainant alleged wrongful confinement at Ajay Malik’s residence, with his neighbor, Ashok Kumar, acting as a caretaker during his absence.
- The police rescued the complainant on March 29, 2017, leading to criminal charges against multiple accused, including the placement agency operators.
Legal Proceedings Before the High Court
- Ajay Malik moved the Uttarakhand High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the FIR and chargesheet, arguing that the case was baseless.
- He later filed an application for compounding (settlement) of offenses, supported by an affidavit from the complainant, who denied any mistreatment.
- The High Court rejected both applications, citing the seriousness of the allegations.
- Separately, the High Court discharged Ashok Kumar, ruling that his role was minimal and did not justify prosecution.
Appeals Before the Supreme Court
- Ajay Malik challenged the rejection of his quashing and compounding applications.
- The State of Uttarakhand appealed against Ashok Kumar’s discharge, arguing that he played a role in wrongful confinement.
3. Key Legal Issues Considered by the Supreme Court
Issue 1: Was the High Court Correct in Rejecting Ajay Malik’s Quashing Application?
- The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 482 CrPC should be exercised cautiously, only in cases where the FIR and chargesheet fail to disclose a prima facie offense.
- Findings:
- The complainant’s initial statement supported her claims of wrongful confinement.
- However, later affidavits and evidence, including CCTV footage and site plans, suggested she had freedom of movement.
- The lack of clear evidence of force or confinement weakened the prosecution’s case.
- The Court ruled that the criminal proceedings against Ajay Malik were unsustainable and quashed them.
Issue 2: Was the High Court Justified in Rejecting the Compounding Application?
- Section 320 CrPC lists non-compoundable offenses, including human trafficking (Section 370 IPC).
- While the Court upheld the High Court’s decision that trafficking offenses cannot be compounded, it noted that no substantive evidence supported the charge against Ajay Malik, making quashing appropriate instead.
Issue 3: Was Ashok Kumar’s Discharge from Criminal Proceedings Justified?
- The State argued that Ashok Kumar, as the keyholder of Malik’s residence, played a role in wrongful confinement.
- Findings:
- The complainant’s statements did not establish direct wrongdoing by Ashok Kumar.
- The site plan showed an alternate exit, contradicting confinement claims.
- His involvement was limited to safeguarding the house and did not indicate criminal intent.
- The Court upheld his discharge.
Issue 4: Legal Protections for Domestic Workers in India
- The Court acknowledged systemic labor exploitation, particularly for women from marginalized communities.
- Findings:
- Domestic workers in India remain unprotected under comprehensive labor laws.
- Past legislative efforts to regulate their working conditions failed to materialize into enforceable laws.
- International labor conventions (ILO standards) provide stronger safeguards, which India has yet to adopt.
- The Court recommended the formation of an expert committee to propose legal reforms for domestic workers’ rights and protections.
4. Supreme Court’s Judgment and Directions
1. Quashing of FIR Against Ajay Malik
- The Court set aside the High Court’s decision and quashed the FIR and chargesheet against Ajay Malik.
- Rationale:
- No prima facie evidence of wrongful confinement or trafficking.
- Complainant’s later affidavits contradicted initial claims.
- Allowing prosecution would amount to harassment and waste of judicial resources.
2. Upholding Ashok Kumar’s Discharge
- The Court dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld Ashok Kumar’s discharge, citing a lack of evidence.
3. Recommendations for Domestic Workers’ Legal Protection
- The Court directed the Central Government to form a committee comprising experts from the Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Social Justice, and Ministry of Women & Child Development.
- The committee must submit a report within six months, recommending:
- Legal framework for domestic workers’ protection.
- Regulation of placement agencies to prevent trafficking.
- Minimum wage and social security provisions.
References Used in the Judgment
Indian Statutory Provisions
- Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of proceedings.
- Section 320 CrPC – Compounding of offenses.
- Section 343 IPC – Wrongful confinement.
- Section 370 IPC – Human trafficking.
- Section 120B IPC – Criminal conspiracy.
Supreme Court Precedents Cited
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 – Guidelines on quashing FIRs based on compromise.
- Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 INSC 217) – Limits of compromise in serious offenses.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259) – When FIRs should be quashed.
- Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 – Criteria for quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
- State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan (2000) 8 SCC 203 – Elements of criminal conspiracy.
- Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641 – Standard of proof in criminal conspiracy.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997 SC 3011) – Guidelines for protecting vulnerable workers.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 471 – Court’s role in issuing social justice directions.