ORDER : M.NAGAPRASANNA, J. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.562 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 374, 344, 504, 370 r/w 34 of IPC, under Sections 16, 17, 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and under Section 3(1)(h) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard Sri Venkatesh Somareddi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri Thejesh P, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The complainant is a Government servant – a Senior Labour Inspector. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant visits the estate of the petitioners along with the Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector and the Village Accountant. The inspection of the estate revealed that there were 3 families staying in the estate all belonging to scheduled caste. The families are said to have been working for over 2 years in the estate. It is the further case of the prosecution that the families were made to forcibly work under difficult conditions, virtually treating them as bonded labourers. After the inspection and recording the statements of those families, a complaint comes to be registered which becomes a crime in Crime No.138 of 2023. The police, after investigation, file a charge sheet against these petitioners for the afore-quoted offences. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven these petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the complaint is registered on extraneous reasons. The families that were in the coffee estate were neither treated as bonded labourers nor were made to work in difficult conditions. Their statements are deliberately recorded and a complaint is registered. Nowhere the ingredients of any of the offences are found is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. He would seek quashment of the entire proceedings. 5. Per-contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would refute the submission contending that the statements of the families would clearly indicate them being treated as bonded labourers. It is his submission that the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet, therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial. 6. 5. Per-contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would refute the submission contending that the statements of the families would clearly indicate them being treated as bonded labourers. It is his submission that the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet, therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of a coffee estate in the name and style of “Rameshwara Estate”, Hanbalu Hobli, Sakleshpura taluk. It is not in dispute that there were 3 families kept in the coffee estate for the purpose of employment. The complainant along with 3 other public servants conducts an inspection and during inspection records the statements of the members of those families. Based upon the statements so recorded, a complaint is registered. I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows: The police, after investigation, file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows: Before the learned Magistrate, the statements of the victims or the members of the family kept for employment in the coffee estate were recorded. The statement of one Chandramma is as follows: “C.R.No.138/2023 of Sakaleshpur Rural Police Station. Dt.22.09.2023 Name Chandramma Husband Name Ahiraf Age 45 years Occupation Daily wage worker Residence Hunasehalli Village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk. Preliminary Enquiry: The alleged victim is aware that she has come to the court. She submits that the intends to give her statement voluntarily and there is no coercion for anybody to give her statement. The alleged victim is aged about 45 years. I find that the victim has satisfactorily answered the questions during her preliminary enquiry. I find that the alleged victim is capable of giving her statement. Statement of the alleged victim recorded U/Sec.164(5) of Cr.PC., (This dated. 22.09.2023 oath has been administered to the alleged victim namely Chandramma) Another, daily wage worker by name one Abhiraj also tenders his statement before the learned Magistrate. It reads as follows: “C.R.No.138/2023 of Sakaleshpur Rural Police Station. Dt.22.09.2023 Name Abhiraj Father’s Name Hanumaiah Age 47 years Occupation Daily wage worker Residence Hunasehalli Village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk. 22.09.2023 oath has been administered to the alleged victim namely Chandramma) Another, daily wage worker by name one Abhiraj also tenders his statement before the learned Magistrate. It reads as follows: “C.R.No.138/2023 of Sakaleshpur Rural Police Station. Dt.22.09.2023 Name Abhiraj Father’s Name Hanumaiah Age 47 years Occupation Daily wage worker Residence Hunasehalli Village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk. Preliminary Enquiry: The alleged victim is aware that he has come to the court. He submits that the intends to give his statement voluntarily and there is no coercion for anybody to give his statement. The alleged victim is aged about 47 years. I find that the victim has satisfactorily answered the questions during his preliminary enquiry. I find that the alleged victim is capable of giving his statement. Statement of the alleged victim recorded U/Sec.164(5) of Cr.PC., (This dated. 22.09.2023 oath has been administered to the alleged victim namely Abhiraj) If the afore-quoted complaint, summary of the charge sheet, statements of two of the victims are read in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is, the victims were made to work from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and sometimes even thereafter. The children of the victims were not allowed to go to school, but were made to work in the estate itself on the ground that the families were paid loan and when the victims wanted to leave employment, they were threatened that they have to shell down Rs.2 to 4 lakhs to leave the employment and go, therefore, they were made to work on account of the loan that they had secured. Working conditions is also narrated, which is quite appalling. Therefore, it is a case where the victims i.e., all the members of the family were virtually treated as serfs and made to work in difficult, if not inhuman conditions, all for the reason that they had availed loan and till they cleared the loan, they had to work as labourers virtually bonded. 8. The offence against these petitioners are the ones punishable under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. They read as follows: “16. Punishment for enforcement of bonded labour.—Whoever, after the commencement of this Act, compels any person to render any bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. 17. They read as follows: “16. Punishment for enforcement of bonded labour.—Whoever, after the commencement of this Act, compels any person to render any bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. 17. Punishment for advancement of bonded debt.—Whoever advances, after the commencement of this Act, any bonded debt shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. 18. Punishment for extracting bonded labour under the bonded labour system.—Whoever enforces, after the commencement of this Act, any custom, tradition, contract, agreement or other instrument, by virtue of which any person or any member of the family of such person or any dependant of such person is required to render any service under the bonded labour system, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees; and, out of the fine, if recovered, payment shall be made to the bonded labourer at the rate of rupees five for each day for which the bonded labour was extracted from him.” Section 16 makes the accused punishable for enforcement of bonded labour; Section 17 for advancement of bonded debt and Section 18 for extracting bonded labour under the bonded labour system. For attracting Section 16, the prosecution should prima facie establish that the accused has forced or compelled the victim to render bonded labour, which should be on the ground that the accused has advanced bonded debt, the complaint; the summary of the charge sheet; the statements recorded of the victims, all of which would clearly indicate prima facie, presence of the ingredients of the offence against the petitioners qua the offences under the Act. Therefore, it becomes a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean, as the pernicious practice of treating labour on grant of debt to become a bonded labour should forthwith stop and if the proceedings are set at naught on the score that the victims are on their own working in the coffee estate, it would be putting a premium on the act of the petitioners treating the victims as serfs. 9. 9. The other offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 374, 344 and 370 of the IPC. Section 374 of the IPC punishes unlawful compulsory labour. Anyone who employs or compels any person to work as a labour against the will become open for punishment. Section 344 of the IPC deals with wrongful confinement for 10 or more days. The statements recorded of the victims would clearly bring out the ingredients of Section 344 of the IPC. What remains is Section 370 of the IPC, which deals with human trafficking. Though human trafficking stricto senso would not find its place in the ingredients, illustration (vi) to Section 370(1) in the provision would hinge upon some of the ingredients, as by giving or receiving payments a person having control over another person recruited, becomes open for trafficking. Therefore, prima facie, these offences are also met. 10. The remainder of the offence is the one punishable under Section 3(1)(h) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Section 3(1)(h) reads as follows: “3: Punishments for offences atrocities. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- xxx (h) makes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do "begar" or other forms of forced or bonded labour other than any compulsory service for public purposes imposed by the Government;” Section 3(1)(h) mandates that no person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe should be made to work without remuneration, which would amount to ‘begar’ and shall not be made to work as any form of bonded labour. Here again, the complaint and the statements of the victims would clearly form the ingredients of the afore-quoted provision as well. The offence under Section 3(1)(h) is therefore met in the case at hand, albeit, prima facie. 11. Therefore, finding no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners, the petition deserves to be rejected and is accordingly, rejected. It is made clear that the observations made during the course of this order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the trial or any other proceedings pending against these petitioners.