Quashed

Adhusoodanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Mar 2014Crl.MC/1619/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings against caretakers of a Children's Home. It held that allegations that children were made to work did not constitute prima facie offences under the Juvenile Justice Act when the work was non-hazardous, sanctioned by authorities, and aimed at child welfare per State Human Rights Commission directions. (33 words)

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceeding in Crime No.170/2014 of Poojappura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district shall stand quashed.

Adhusoodanan Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/4TH CHAITHRA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1619 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 170/2014 OF POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS: 1-6:

¶8

1. MADHUSOODANAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 52 YEARS AMALAYALAM PARURKUZHI, VEDIVECHANKOVIL P.O.

¶9

BALARAMAPURAM, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT

¶10

CHILDREN'S HOME AND SPECIAL HOME, POOJAPPURA.

¶11

2. MANIKANDAN, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 41 YEARS

¶12

REVEDRAM, KANJIRAMPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -3

¶13

WORKING AS CARETAKER

¶14

CHILDREN'S HOME AND SPECIAL HOME, POOJAPPURA.

¶15

3. SAJIN R., S/O.RATNASWAMI,

¶16

PARACKAL HOUSE, THALACHANVILA, PARASALA P.O.

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -4, CARETAKER

¶18

CHILDREN'S HOME AND SPECIAL HOME, POOJAPPURA.

¶19

4. BEENA S.R.,

¶20

D/O.SYAMALA, SIVA NIVAS, CONVENT ROAD

¶21

NEYYATTINKARA, CARETAKER

¶22

CHILDREN'S HOME AND SPECIAL HOME, POOJAPPURA.

¶23

5. ANIL KUMAR,

¶24

S/O.SIVADASA KURUP, ANU BHAVANAM, PARIMANAM

¶25

NEENDAKARA P.O., KOLLAM, CARE PRIVIDER

¶26

CHILDREN'S HOME AND SPECIAL HOME, POOJAPPURA.

¶27

BY ADVS.SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI

¶28

SMT.ANILA GEORGE

¶29

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶30

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.

¶31

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶32

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

Crl.MC.No. 1619 of 2014 ()

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶36

ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R NO: 170/2014 OF POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION DATED 6/2/2014 ATTACHED WITH THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE C.W.C MEMBER.

¶37

ANNEXURE II: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SUBSEQUENT REPORT STATING THE NAMES OF ACCUSED IN CRIME NO.170/2014, FILED BY THE S.I OF POLICE, POOJAPPURA.

¶38

ANNEXURE III: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE S.I OF POLICE, POOJAPURA.

¶39

ANNEXURE IV: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY S.I OF POLICE DATED 6/2/2014 STATING THE PLACE OF OCCURRENCE.

¶40

ANNEXURE V: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNCATION ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT, CHILDREN'S HOME, POOJAPPURA DATED 6/4/2010.

¶41

ANNEXURE VI: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶42

ANNEXURE VII: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT TO THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DATED 15/1/2014.

¶43

ANNEXURE VIII: TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO THE STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS DATED 13/2/2014.

¶44

ANNEXURE IX: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, C.W.C. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 12/2/2014.

¶45

ANNEXURE X: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE DATED 14/2/2014.

¶46

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶47

--------------------------------------NIL

// True copy //

PA to Judge

das

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶52

==========================

¶53

CRL.M.C. No. 1619 of 2014

¶54

===================================

¶55

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2014

¶56

ORDER

¶57

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.170/2014 of Poojappura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district. The offences alleged are punishable under Secs.23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act r/w Secs.116, 117 and 119 of IPC.

¶58

The main allegation is that the petitioners, who are Care Takers and Superintendent of the Children's Home and Special Home, made the children to work and thereby they have committed the offences as stated above. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as can be seen from Annexure V, as per the directions of the State Human Rights Commission, vegetable cultivation and planting of flower plants in the land adjoining to the Children's Home, was proposed to be arranged and carried out. Based on that the Principal Agricultural Officer,

¶59

-: 2 :-

¶60

Crl.M.C. No.1619/2014

¶61

Thiruvananthapuram sanctioned some amount for the said work. The children who were stated to have been seen doing work were aged above 14 years. No hazardous work was directed to be done by the children. The children were only helping other persons and carrying out agricultural works as has been done in any agricultural family. The intention behind is to make the children efficient and able bodied citizens of the country when they attain 18 years. Children cannot be asked to sit idle. They should not become lazy. There was no evil motive behind such directions. That is the very reason why the State Human Rights Commission has recommended such activities to be carried out by the Superintendent of the Children's Home. Carrying out such activities in the best interest of the children as per the directions of State Human Rights Commission cannot attract the offences alleged.

¶62

In these circumstances, I did not find any prima facie case to hold that the petitioners have committed the

¶63

-: 3 :-

¶64

Crl.M.C. No.1619/2014

¶65

offences as mentioned above. Hence, further proceedings in Crime No.170/2014 of Poojappura Police Station,

¶66

Thiruvananthapuram district shall stand quashed.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶69

das

Adhusoodanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adhusoodanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman Vs State of Kerala

A.Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Johnson @ Appachan Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Haneef Vs Riyana