JUDGMENT : Both Criminal Petition No.231/2024 and Criminal Petition No.222/2024 were heard analogously and are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order since both these petitions raises common questions of law and arises out of the same set of facts. 2. Heard Mrs. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and Mr. K. K. Das and Mr. J. Chutia, learned Additional Public Prosecutors, Assam for the State/respondent No.1. Also heard Mrs. S. Khataniar, learned Legal Aid Counsel representing the respondent No.2 in both the petitions. 3. For the sake convenience, the facts of the case leading to filing of Criminal Petition No.231/2024 may briefly be discussed as under. 4. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 23.06.2023 corresponding to Hojai Police Station Case No.300/2023 (G.R. Case No.1214/2023) registered under Sections 325 /370(4)/34 of the IPC read with Section 75 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT read with Section 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The petitioners have also challenged the Charge-Sheet No.325 dated 30.09.2023 under Section 370(4)/34 of the IPC read with Section 75 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT read with Section 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 as well as the subsequent Criminal proceedings of the said case. 5. The F.I.R. dated 23.06.2023 lodged by the In-Charge of the District Child Protection Officer reveals inter-alia that the victim was rescued by the Hojai Police Station, DCPU, CWC, Hojai after having found the accused persons using her as a domestic helper, who was further found to have been physically abused by the accused persons mentioned therein. It is also stated that the video relating to the said offence has been circulated in the social media. In the said F.I.R. both the petitioners were arrayed as accused persons and the same was registered under the relevant provisions of law as mentioned above. The police after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No.325 dated 30.09.2023 against both the petitioners. 6. Mrs. In the said F.I.R. both the petitioners were arrayed as accused persons and the same was registered under the relevant provisions of law as mentioned above. The police after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No.325 dated 30.09.2023 against both the petitioners. 6. Mrs. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before this Court that the video clipping which was mentioned in the F.I.R. was edited and by the same a different story was projected by people with vested interest as the petitioner No.2 is stated to be a renowned political and social person. The learned counsel has submitted that the entire exercise was only to destroy the reputation of the family of petitioner No.2. Mrs. Choudhury has placed reliance on Section 65-B of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT and has submitted that no certificate was issued till date in the present proceeding as required under the said provision for admissibility of the electronic evidence. The learned counsel has also submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again observed that video is not a reliable piece of evidence which is susceptible to manipulation and various editing. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in the evidence collected by the police personnel in the present case the petitioner No.2 is no way involved in the offence and that she submits that the petitioner No.2 is 85 years of age and is a heart patient who is also suffering from many ailment. She, as such, submits that no offence is made out against the petitioners on a bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the accompanying documents much less petitioner No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the guidelines formulated in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supple (1) SCC 335 and submits that by applying the said guidelines the present case is liable to be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the ingredients of Section 370(4) of the IPC is not attracted in the instant case and that in the video it is only seen that the petitioner No.1 has used a small stick in controlling the victim. 8. Mr. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the ingredients of Section 370(4) of the IPC is not attracted in the instant case and that in the video it is only seen that the petitioner No.1 has used a small stick in controlling the victim. 8. Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. shows that both the petitioners had abused the victim. He placed the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that the petitioner No.1 had although admitted her in a school but she was mostly engaged in household works and that the petitioner No.1 used to assault her even on tiny matters. She also stated that the petitioner No.1 once hit her to such an extent that blood came out from her ears. 9. The learned Addl. P.P. has also placed the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein she stated similarly to the effect that the petitioner No.1 had hit her with a sandal due to which blood came from her ears. She further stated that the petitioner No.1 used to assault her a lot when she was at her place. The learned Addl. P.P. has also placed reliance on the statement of the victim’s mother before police wherein she stated that the petitioner No.1 had taken the victim with the promise to educate her but instead she made her do all the household works. The learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that there are enough materials against the petitioner and as such the said F.I.R. as well as the Charge-sheet is not liable to be quashed. 10. Mr. J. Chutia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has made some further arguments in the instant case. He relied on the statement of the victim made before the Investigating Officer wherein she stated that although the petitioner No.1 had brought her with the promise that she would educate her but the petitioner No.1 had made her work of all household chores and that the victim was also made to look after one of her nephew. He also submitted that the alleged torture of the victim was in the house of the petitioner No.2 although he states that the tortures were done by the petitioner No.1. He also submitted that the alleged torture of the victim was in the house of the petitioner No.2 although he states that the tortures were done by the petitioner No.1. He further submitted that the petitioners can make an application during framing of charge and raise their grievances during the same and as such he submits that quashing of the F.I.R. as well as the charge-sheet and the resultant proceedings may not be entertained by this Court. 11. Mrs. S. Khataniar, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has adopted the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and further placed the statements of the independent witnesses made before the Investigating Officer wherein they stated that although they heard that the victim was assaulted by the petitioners but on seeing the video they became certain and found that the victim was badly beaten up by the petitioners and as such she prays that the instant F.I.R. as well as the Charge-sheet may not be quashed. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials on record. 13. A bare perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the allegations were against both the petitioners and it is alleged that they by using the victim as a domestic helper had physically abused her and that the same was recorded in a video and was circulated in the social media. It is a settled position of law that where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the Complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute an offence or makes out a case against the accused, the same can be quashed but in the instant case, the said F.I.R. does make out a prima-facie case against the accused persons. 14. However, it is also held by the Apex Court that in case there are other materials on record to show that no case is made out against the accused person arrayed in the F.I.R., the said F.I.R. as well as the subsequent proceedings may be quashed. 14. However, it is also held by the Apex Court that in case there are other materials on record to show that no case is made out against the accused person arrayed in the F.I.R., the said F.I.R. as well as the subsequent proceedings may be quashed. It is reflected in the statement of the victim girl both before the police as well as before the Magistrate that one co-accused namely Aklima Begum during the Lockdown period in the year 2021 had taken her to the house of petitioner No.1 for doing household chores but then she stated that she went to the house of the petitioner No.1 to do the said work but then again she also stated that the petitioner No.1 had admitted her in a school. However, at the same time, she stated that the petitioner No.1 had made her do all the house works and that she was also made to look after the nephew of petitioner No.1 and also that she never disclosed the said incident to her mother. In her statement before the police she stated that oneday the petitioner No.1 slapped her due to which blood came out from her ears. In her statement before the Magistrate she stated that since two years she has been working in the house of the petitioner No.1 and that oneday the petitioner had beaten her up with a sandal due to which blood came out from her ears and she also stated that her mother used to take money from petitioner No.1 in lieu of her working in the house of petitioner No.1. 15. It is seen that there are discrepancies in the statement of the victim girl before the police and the Magistrate, however, the same are subject matter of trial. But it is crystal clear from her statements that she had not implicated any ill deeds on the part of the petitioner No.2. 16. Apart from the statement of the victim, the mother of the victim was also examined by the police and she stated that she had kept her daughter in the house of petitioner No.1 on the promise of petitioner No.1 that she would educate her daughter and that the other co-accused, viz., Aklima Begum after speaking to petitioner No.1 gave her daughter to petitioner No.1 for bringing her up. She stated that instead of educating her, the petitioner No.1 had made her work in the house as a maid. This statement also does not show any act on the part of the petitioner No.2. Apart therefrom, independent witnesses are also examined in the instant case and one of the witnesses had stated that the victim was brought by the petitioners to educate her and that she was admitted in a school and that he stated that the victim was sent back to her mother’s house. This witness further stated that he heard that the victim was assaulted in the house of petitioner No.1 but then after seeing the video he became certain that both the petitioners used to torture the victim. Similar statements were also made by another witness in the instant proceeding. It is, however, unknown as to the authenticity of the video clipping. 17. In the instant case, the Charge-sheet was filed under Section 370(4) read with Section 34 of the IPC as well as under Section 75 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT and Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and the cognizance was also taken against the petitioners under the said provisions of law. 18. Section 370 of the IPC inter-alia provides that whoever for the purpose of exploitation recruits, transports, receives etc. a person by threat, by coercion, by abduction, by practicing fraud or by abuse of power or by inducement including giving or receiving payments and by consent of the person who has control over the person recruited is said to commit the offence of trafficking and under sub-section (4) the punishment for the same is provided. It is in the statements of the witnesses, more so in the statement of the victim as well as the mother of the victim that it was the mother of the victim who gave the victim to petitioner No.1 who promised her that she would educate the victim and on the said promise the mother further stated that the other co- accused, namely, Aklima Begum after speaking to petitioner No.1 gave the victim to the said petitioner. The victim also stated that the co-accused Aklima Begum had taken her to the house of the petitioner No.1 where she was engaged to do the household work. The victim also stated that the co-accused Aklima Begum had taken her to the house of the petitioner No.1 where she was engaged to do the household work. None of the witnesses have stated about the petitioner No.2 about his involvement in taking the victim to his house either for educating or for doing household work and as such Section 370 IPC is not attracted in case of the petitioner No.2. 19. The instant case is also lodged for offence under Section 75 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT . Section 75 of the JJ Act provides that whoever having the actual charge or control over a child assaults, abuses, neglects etc. or procures the child to be assaulted, abused, neglected etc. in a manner likely to cause the child mental or physical suffering may be charged under the said section. In the instant case, there is nowhere in the statement of the witnesses that petitioner No.2 was in actual charge of the child or that he had assaulted or had done any other acts on the said victim. 20. The further offence alleged under Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 which provides that whoever employes any child or permits any child to work in contravention of provision of Section 3 shall be punished in accordance with law. In connection with this offence too, there is nowhere in the statement of the witnesses that it was the petitioner No.2 who had employed the child or has permitted the child to work in contravention of Section 3 of the said Act. It is writ large in the statement of all the witnesses that it is the petitioner No.1 who had taken the victim and has made to stay in her house and has made the victim further to work in her said house as a maid in spite of the fact that the petitioner No.1 had admitted the victim in a school. But in respect of petitioner No.2 there is no statement or evidence against him in respect of the offences mentioned in the instant case. 21. But in respect of petitioner No.2 there is no statement or evidence against him in respect of the offences mentioned in the instant case. 21. Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is, however, added along with the said offences and Section 34 provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. It is no res integra that in order to prove the common intention as provided under Section 34 IPC the prosecution has to show from evidence on record as to the manner in which the crime has been committed, the conduct of the accused soon before and after the occurrence, the determination and the concern with which the crime was committed, the injury caused by any one of them etc. as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goudappa & others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2013) 3 SCC 675 . The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted herein below :- “…….. Then how to gather common intention? The common intention is gathered from the manner in which the crime has been committed, the conduct of the accused soon before and after the occurrence, the determination and concern with which the crime was committed, the weapon carried by the accused and from the nature and injury caused by one or some of them. Therefore, for arriving at a conclusion whether the accused had the common intention to commit an offence of which they could be convicted, the totality of circumstances must be taken into consideration.” 22. In the instant case, the materials on record does not show any conduct of the petitioner No.2 at any point of time showing that he was involved in the said alleged offences to gather the common intention under Section 34 IPC. 23. As such, in view of the discussions made herein above, this Court quashes the F.I.R. dated 23.06.2023, the Charge-Sheet dated 30.09.2023 as well as the subsequent proceedings including the cognizance order qua the petitioner No.2 in Criminal Petition No.231/2024. 24. 23. As such, in view of the discussions made herein above, this Court quashes the F.I.R. dated 23.06.2023, the Charge-Sheet dated 30.09.2023 as well as the subsequent proceedings including the cognizance order qua the petitioner No.2 in Criminal Petition No.231/2024. 24. As far as the petitioner No.1 viz., Farhana Begum is concerned, there are prima facie materials and as such, this Court is not inclined to quash the F.I.R., the Charge-sheet as well as the subsequent orders qua the petitioner No.1. 25. As far as the petitioner, viz, Aklima Begum in the connected criminal petition being Criminal Petition No.222/2024 is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and it was only during investigation that the name of the petitioner surfaced and she was also arrayed as an accused person in the Charge-sheet dated 30.09.2023. Further, the learned Trial Court had also taken cognizance against the petitioner Aklima Begum vide order dated 17.11.2023 charging her under the same sections i.e. Section 370(4)/34 IPC read with Section 75 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT as well as Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. 26. It is stated by the witnesses in the instant case, more specifically the mother of the victim, who stated that after she decided to hand over the victim to Ms. Farhana Begum, the petitioner spoke to her and thereafter the victim was given to said Farhana Begum who had kept the victim in her house. The victim also in her statement before the police stated that it was the petitioner who had handed her over to Farhana Begum and she was kept in the house by Farhana Begum thereafter. As mentioned above, Section 75 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT and Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 would not be attracted in case of the petitioner Aklima Begum on a prima facie examination. Even Section 370 would not be attracted in case of the petitioner since it is in the statement of the witnesses that she had simply given the victim to Farhana Begum. There is neither any materials showing that for the purpose of exploitation she gave her or for any financial benefit. As such, the Charge-sheet dated 30.09.2023 as well as the subsequent proceedings including the cognizance order dated 17.11.2023 is quashed qua the petitioner, viz., Aklima Begum as well. 27. There is neither any materials showing that for the purpose of exploitation she gave her or for any financial benefit. As such, the Charge-sheet dated 30.09.2023 as well as the subsequent proceedings including the cognizance order dated 17.11.2023 is quashed qua the petitioner, viz., Aklima Begum as well. 27. With these observations, both the petitions are disposed off.