Delhi High Court on Withholding a Child’s Earnings under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the framing of charge under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) against a social activist accused of withholding a minor’s earnings. The Court held that at the stage of framing charges, the material on record only needs to disclose a prima facie case, and the victim’s statement indicating that her wages were retained by the petitioner and co-accused was sufficient to attract the offence under Section 79 JJ Act.

Background:

• The petitioner, Renu Tora, a social activist running an NGO in Delhi, was charged under Section 79 JJ Act in FIR No. 230/2022 (P.S. Shalimar Bagh) arising from allegations of withholding the earnings of a child domestic worker.

• The FIR was based on the complaint of a minor girl who alleged being trafficked from Jharkhand to Delhi by co-accused Firoz and made to work as a domestic help at Deepak Jain’s residence.

• The victim claimed that her salary was handed over by Deepak Jain to Firoz and the petitioner at a hotel, but she never received the payment.

• The Trial Court framed charges against Firoz under Sections 370, 370A, 376(2)(n), 376(3), and 174A IPC, Sections 5(1)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 79 of the JJ Act; and against the petitioner under Section 79 JJ Act, while co-accused Deepak Jain was discharged.

• The petitioner challenged the order, arguing she had no role in employing or exploiting the victim and that she was being falsely implicated despite her long-standing social work.

Court’s Observations:

• Section 79 JJ Act punishes three distinct forms of exploitation of a child:

(i) Engaging or keeping a child in bondage for employment;

(ii) Withholding a child’s earnings; or

(iii) Using such earnings for one’s own purposes.

The existence of any one condition is sufficient to attract the offence.

• The victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly alleged that her wages were handed to the petitioner and Firoz, who never paid her.

• The allegation that the petitioner and co-accused induced the child to give a false statement in exchange for her withheld salary further indicated misuse of her earnings.

• The Court held that the victim’s consistent statement constituted prima facie evidence for framing the charge.

• At the charge stage, the Court need not evaluate the credibility of witnesses or weigh the evidence but only determine whether material exists to presume commission of an offence.

• The Trial Court correctly interpreted Section 79 JJ Act and applied its “second and third limbs” — withholding and using a child’s earnings — to the petitioner’s alleged conduct.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 79, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Punishment for employing, keeping in bondage, or withholding the earnings of a child.

• Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Recording of statements before a Magistrate.

• Sections 370, 376, 506 IPC – Trafficking and sexual offences.

• Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) – Aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The Court held that the allegations in the FIR and the victim’s statement disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 79 JJ Act. Finding no illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s order, the revision petition was dismissed.

The petition was dismissed; charges under Section 79 JJ Act were upheld.

Citation: 2025:DHC:XXXXX

Case: Renu Tora v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Criminal Revision Petition No.: CRL.REV.P. 107/2025 & CRL.M.A. 9052/2025