Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a set of two applications filed by Zahid Beg, an MLA of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, and his wife, Seema Beg seeking quashing of the cognizance order and the charge-sheet filed against them regarding human trafficking and bonded labour of minor girls, a Single Judge Bench of Sameer Jain, J., held that charge sheets filed, and proceedings pending were bad, and both were liable to be quashed and no prima facie case was made against them.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the same and listed the matter for further hearing.
Background
In September 2024, a minor girl was found dead in Zahid Beg’s house under suspicious circumstances and during inquiry it was revealed that there was another minor girl working as a maid servant in the house. Thereafter, when, on the District Magistrate’s direction, officers arrived at the house, Zahid Beg and Seema Beg revealed that the minor girl was aged about 15 years and was found working as domestic helper.
The said girl was taken to the police station and was produced before the Juvenile Welfare Committee and after the order of committee, she was sent to a protection home. After the inquiry from the girl, it was found that she had been working in the house for the last two years as a domestic helper and no consideration was given to her. She disclosed that while working sometimes she was also scolded and beaten. Additionally, the deceased minor girl worked with her and she paid Rs 2000 per month, but the amount was taken by her mother. She also revealed that about 2-3 days before the deceased girl was found, she had expressed that she wanted to escape from the house.
Accordingly, an FIR was lodged against Zahid Beg and his wife, Seema Beg, under Sections 143(4) and 143(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’), Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (‘Juvenile Act’), and Sections 4 and 16 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (‘Bonded Labour Act’). It was alleged that due to the working conditions, the deceased maid servant committed suicide in the house of Zahid Beg.
After the investigation was conducted, a charge sheet was filed against Zahid Beg and Seema Beg and thereafter the Court took the cognizance and issued summons. Hence, the couple filed applications.
Analysis and Decision
At the outset, the Court reiterated that if from the perusal of material available on record collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation prima facie alleged offences are not made out against an accused then charge-sheet filed against him and proceedings pending against him can be quashed. In this regard, the Court placed reliance on R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
The Court noted that both victims were minor girls and employed by Seema Beg as domestic help, and the deceased victim was only paid Rs 1000 as salary, which her mother would receive. The rescued victim was not receiving any monthly monetary remuneration, and according to her and her family members, Seema and Zahid Beg had assured to bear expenses of her marriage and they also bore the marriage expenses of her elder sister. However, the Court stated that it could not be reflected from their statements and other material available on record that both the alleged victims were employed by Seema Beg for exploitation.
Upon perusal of Section 143 of the BNS, the Court stated no case was made out under it as there was no evidence that both the alleged victims were employed by using threat, force, abduction, fraud, abuse of power, or inducement. Further, there was also no evidence that at the time of giving employment, the consent of family members of victims, who were minors, were obtained by making any inducement by giving payment or benefit.
Considering the State’s contention that giving only Rs. 1000 amounted to begar under Article 23 of the Constitution, the Court held that merely on the basis of Article 23, a person cannot be either prosecuted or convicted unless there was any specific provision under any law in force. Further, the offence under Section 143 of the BNS did not include begar and was only for trafficking human beings, which was not made out.
Regarding offence under Section 79 of the Juvenile Act, the Court noted that there was no allegation that the alleged victims were kept by Seema Beg in bondage and there was also no evidence that she withheld their earnings or used their earnings for her own purpose. Therefore, prima facie, no offence was made out under the said provision.
Further, there was neither any evidence nor allegation that Seema Beg compelled the alleged victims to render any bondage labour and therefore, offence under Section 16 of the Bonded Labour Act was also not made out against her.
Thus, the Court held that prima facie, no offence under Section 143 of the BNS, Section of the Juvenile Act, and Sections 4/16 of the Bonded Labour Act were made out against Seema. Holding this, the Court quashed the charge sheet and pending proceedings against her
Regarding Zahid Beg, the Court stayed the Trial Court proceedings, called for a counter affidavit from the State which had already been called in Seema Beg’s case, and listed the matter for further hearing.
[Seema Beg v. State of UP, Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 35862 of 2025, decided on 07-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicants: Senior Advocates G.S. Chaturvedi and Zeeshan Mazhar
For the Opposite Party: Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal and Additional Government Advocate Arvind Kumar
Buy Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
