- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- "Strong Suspicion Of Planned...
"Strong Suspicion Of Planned Syndicate Selling & Buying Children": Delhi High Court Upholds Charges Framed Against Medical Professional
Nupur Thapliyal
20 April 2022 5:15 PM IST
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld charges framed against a woman, a medical professional, under Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, finding a "strong suspicion" of a planned syndicate for selling and buying of children.Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Trial Court order which had framed charges under sec. 120B read with sec. 363...
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld charges framed against a woman, a medical professional, under Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, finding a "strong suspicion" of a planned syndicate for selling and buying of children.
Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Trial Court order which had framed charges under sec. 120B read with sec. 363 and 370 of IPC as well as sec. 80 and 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she was a medical professional who was merely running a consultation centre for patients seeking IVF treatment and had been falsely implicated in the matter.
It was argued that the Petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FIR and that no specific role had been assigned to her and she was merely been arrested on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co- accused.
It was also submitted that there was no evidence that established the fact of sale and purchase of the child for the purposes of child trafficking, and relied upon an adoption deed to state that the case was merely that of an adoption.
It was argued that the impugned Order did not take into account the evidence on record to discern whether a prima facie case was made out against the Petitioner under IPC. It was argued that the child which was given to one Krishan Kumar was at best a case of improper adoption and could be categorised as an offence under the JJ Act.
Perusing the chargesheet, the Court noted that the disclosure statement of the co accused led the police to the residence of the Petitioner and that the petitioner was arrested thereafter.
According to the chargesheet, the WhatsApp of the Petitioner had chats regarding selling and buying of children. After the interrogation of the Petitioner, a male child which had been sold by the Petitioner in June 2020 was recovered from the custody of two persons. When they were interrogated, they revealed that as they were facing problems in having a child, they had turned to the Petitioner who was a running her private clinic.
"Chargesheet states that the investigation has revealed that a planned syndicate involving buying and selling of children was in existence," the Court noted.
The Court was of the view that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court possesses the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused.
It added that if the Court arrives at the conclusion that the material placed before it does not satisfy the ingredients of an offence that has been alleged against the accused, then the Court has the liberty to discharge the accused from being prosecuted under the said offence.
"For this purpose, the Court is meant to exercise his judicial mind and consider the material placed before it comprehensively. Lack of application of judicial mind may lead to the accused having to face the rigours of the criminal justice system without having committed the offence," the Court observed.
The Court noted that while the Petitioner was stated to be running a clinic for facilitating adoption, however, in what capacity the same was being done was unclear.
"This Court, therefore, finds that a strong suspicion of a planned syndicate for selling and buying of children is indeed in place and the Petitioner may have a role to play in the same, which can only be conclusively ascertained during the course of trial. There is no legal infirmity or lack of application of judicial mind in the impugned Order dated that warrants the interference of this Court and, therefore, this Court does not deem it fit to exercise its jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set the same aside," the Court ordered.
The plea was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: SHRI KUSUM LATA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 343