Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against DRDO Scientist in Human Trafficking Case

The Supreme Court of India, in its ruling on Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, quashed the FIR and all criminal proceedings against the appellant, a DRDO scientist, who was accused of wrongful confinement and human trafficking of a domestic worker. The Court found that the allegations did not establish prima facie evidence of these crimes and that the complainant herself had stated that she was not wrongfully confined or exploited.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR registered at Rampur Police Station, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, on March 30, 2017. The complainant, a woman from a Scheduled Tribe community in Chhattisgarh, had been employed as a domestic worker through a placement agency, Saint Maryam Placement Services, in Delhi. The agency sent her to work at the residence of Ajay Malik, a Class-I scientist at DRDO, on October 16, 2016.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-commutes-life-sentence-in-murder-case-citing-sudden-provocation/

According to the FIR:

• The complainant was confined in Malik’s official residence while he and his family were away for official duty.
• She contacted the police on March 29, 2017, leading to her rescue.
• The police recovered her and registered an FIR under Sections 343 (wrongful confinement) and 370 (human trafficking) of the IPC.
• The charge sheet also included Section 120B (criminal conspiracy).

Malik moved the Uttarakhand High Court to quash the proceedings, but his plea was dismissed on September 1, 2022. He then approached the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether Malik’s actions constituted wrongful confinement under Section 343 IPC.
• Whether there was evidence to support human trafficking charges under Section 370 IPC.
• Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the petition for quashing the FIR.
• Whether the legal framework in India adequately protects domestic workers from exploitation.

Arguments by the Appellant (Ajay Malik)

• Malik contended that the complainant was never wrongfully confined, as she had access to a mobile phone and an alternative exit.
• She was employed legally through a placement agency, and all payments were made to the agency.
• She never alleged mistreatment until filing the FIR.
• The complainant herself filed a sworn affidavit stating that she had no grievances against Malik and wished to withdraw the case.
• The prosecution’s case was based on vague allegations and lacked substantive evidence.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Uttarakhand)

• The prosecution argued that the complainant was left in a locked house with no way to leave.
• Even though she had a mobile phone, she could not move freely.
• The agency that placed her was engaged in dubious activities, and Malik’s involvement should be scrutinized.
• The affidavit submitted by the complainant was unreliable and could have been coerced.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• “From the evidence, it is difficult to conclude that the appellant had come with a premeditated intention to confine the complainant.”
• “The possibility of the complainant being unhappy with the placement agency and taking legal recourse as a means to exit that employment cannot be ruled out.”
• “Given the complainant’s own affidavit and lack of any concrete evidence, proceeding with this case would be an abuse of judicial process.”
• “The case falls within the ambit of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where criminal proceedings should be quashed if no prima facie case is made out.”

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings against Ajay Malik.
• It upheld the discharge of Ashok Kumar, Malik’s neighbor, who was also accused.
• The Court clarified that its ruling had no bearing on the pending cases against the placement agency and its operators.
• It directed the government to set up a committee to explore legal protections for domestic workers.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the principle that criminal cases must be based on clear evidence and not vague allegations. The Court also highlighted the need for stronger legal protections for domestic workers, calling for government intervention to address their rights and working conditions.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-bail-for-convicted-ndps-offender-due-to-delay-in-appeal-hearing/

Petitioner Name: Ajay Malik.
Respondent Name: State of Uttarakhand and Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Place Of Incident: Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 29-01-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: ajay-malik-vs-state-of-uttarakhand-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-29-01-2025.pdf