MP High Court quashes FIR under Section 370 IPC and JJ Act against Christian Missionary over Adoption of Children

The Court held that “the prosecution of the petitioner is sugarcoated with ill-intention and made to belittle his image in the society.” ...

Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition seeking quashment of an FIR registered against the petitioner, who operates an orphanage, for alleged involvement in male trafficking under Section 370 of the IPC, a single-judge bench of Sanjay Dwivedi, J., quashed the FIR alleging male trafficking as the essential elements of Section 370 IPC were absent. 

Factual Matrix I

n the instant matter, the petitioner, Aadhaarshila Sansthan, operates two institutions (i) Bal Bhawan (earlier known as Central India Christian Mission), an orphanage registered as a Child Care Institution under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and Central India Academy, a residential school not falling under the JJ Act’s Child Care Institution definition.

In a communication dated 06-08-2024, the City Superintendent of Police, Damoh, sought detailed records regarding children residing in Bal Bhawan and raised concerns about how they were received, their medical records, and whether proper notifications to authorities were made

Following this, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 07-08-2024, for offenses under Sections 370(3), 370(4), and 34 of the IPC, along with Section 80 of the JJ Act. The FIR was grounded on allegations of improper post-adoption follow-up of two children, ‘X-Bhosle’ and ‘X-Dhurvey’, who were reportedly found living at the orphanage after being adopted. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash both the communication dated 06-08-2024 and the FIR.

The petitioner had previously faced legal proceedings in relation to an FIR filed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), in which anticipatory bail was granted, and the trial was stayed by the Supreme Court. The NCPCR also raised concerns about the post-adoption follow-up reports for the two children in question.

Moot Point 

1. Whether the City Superintendent’s communication dated 06-08-2024 requesting information on adopted children violates the JJ Act and Adoption Regulations, 2017, particularly regarding the confidentiality of the children’s identities?

2. Whether the FIR against the petitioner is legally valid, particularly in the context of trafficking allegations under Section 370 IPC and non-compliance with post-adoption formalities?

3. Whether the actions of NCPCR, particularly its Chairperson, amount to undue pressure on statutory authorities to pursue criminal action against the petitioner?

4. Whether the interveners (adoptive parents) have a right to intervene in the proceedings concerning the investigation into mail trafficking?

Parties’ Contentions

The petitioner contended that the children were adopted following proper legal procedures under the JJ Act and were not residing at Bal Bhawan but at Central India Academy’s hostel, which does not fall under the definition of a Child Care Institution. It was contended that the failure to submit the post-adoption follow-up report, at best, might attract a fine, not criminal charges and the FIR’s invocation of Section 370 (trafficking) is inappropriate, as no trafficking occurred. It was stated that the after the cancellation of its registration in August 2023, the Bal Bhawan was closed and all children were relocated and the Academy also ceased its operations during the 2023-24 academic year. It was contended that the NCPCR Chairperson has misused his position to pressurise officials, lodging an FIR without valid grounds and using social media to defame the petitioner

The respondents contended that the petitioner had withheld critical information about the children, particularly regarding their status after adoption, therefore, the police were within their rights to request the records. The State emphasised that the investigation was ongoing and allowing the same to continue would reveal whether the petitioner was involved in trafficking under the guise of child welfare. It was further contended that the NCPCR, empowered under Section 109 of the JJ Act, has the authority to monitor and ensure compliance with adoption laws and, therefore, its actions were in furtherance of its statutory duty.

The interveners, adoptive parents of the children, requested to intervene in the case, citing that the disclosure of the children’s past would harm their future and their family’s reputation

Court’s Observation

The Court recognised the adoptive parents’ legitimate interest in protecting the children’s privacy, as the disclosure of their identity and past could adversely affect them. The Court upheld the adoptive parents’ right to intervene as the parents had obtained a valid adoption order

The Court emphasised that Section 74 of the JJ Act prohibits the disclosure of any information that could identify a child involved in judicial proceedings, whether as a victim, witness, or child in need of care and protection and stated that the respondents’ request for the children’s details is in direct violation of this Section. The Court held that the authorities had violated Section 74 of the JJ Act by disclosing the identity of the children in public communications. The Court opined that since the children had been legally adopted, they were no longer considered orphans, and any disclosure of their identity was illegal.

The Court found that the adoption process was completed after following all legal requirements, with the Family Court, thereby, confirming the children were legally free for adoption. The Court rejected any attempt to revisit the legality of the adoption and stated that since no challenges were made to the original adoption order at the time of the process, the same cannot be done now.

The Court noted that the ingredients of Section 370 of the IPC regarding human trafficking were not substantiated in the case. The Court further noted that there is no evidence to support the involvement of the petitioner in trafficking or to link the adopted children to the crime. The Court deemed the FIR lodged against the petitioner to lack merit.

The Court held that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner wad frivolous and amounted to harassment. While exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court quashed the FIR and dismissed the criminal proceedings as an abuse of process.

Court’s Decision

While recognising the privacy rights of the adopted children and rejecting the respondents’ attempts to delve into their past, the Court quashed the FIR and dismissed the proceedings as an abuse of process.

[Ajai Lall v. State of M.P., Writ Petition No. 23048/2024, Decided on 23-09-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case : 

Shri Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate, with Shri Shashank Shekhar, Senior Advocate and Shri Bhoopesh Tiwari, Counsel for the Petitioner 

Shri Prashant Singh, Advocate General, Shri B.D. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Counsel for the Respondents/State 

Shri Akshat Arjaria and Shri Abid Parikh, Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 

Shri Aakash Choudhury and Shri Vishal Daniel, Counsel for the Interveners