Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Scientist; Upholds Discharge Of Neighbour, Orders Expert Panel On Domestic Workers

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard appeals arising out of FIR No. 60/2017 concerning allegations of wrongful confinement and trafficking of a female domestic worker. The appeals included Ajay Malik’s challenge to the Uttarakhand High Court’s refusal to quash and compound criminal proceedings against him, and the State’s challenge to the High Court’s discharge of Ashok Kumar from the same FIR.

The Court allowed Ajay Malik’s appeal, set aside the High Court order of 01.09.2022, and quashed FIR No. 60/2017 (Case Crime No. 94/2017), the Chargesheet and all proceedings against him. The Court dismissed the State’s appeal against Ashok Kumar and upheld the High Court order of 12.01.2021 discharging him. The Court observed that while High Courts possessed inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process, “the High Court must exercise it sparingly.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In light of the absence of any prima facie evidence of wrongdoing by Ajay Malik; the vague and omnibus claims made in the FIR and subsequently the Chargesheet; and the Complainant's consistent stance to compound and settle the dispute, we are unable to concur with the High Court's conclusion in the Impugned Judgement, which otherwise constitutes a fit case for quashing.” The Court further held that no prima facie case of wrongful confinement under Section 343, trafficking under Section 370 or criminal conspiracy under Section 120B was made out against Ajay Malik.

Background The dispute arose when a woman from a Scheduled Tribe in Chhattisgarh, brought to Delhi in 2009 and allegedly placed through a placement agency run by one Shambhu, lodged a complaint that she had been wrongfully confined and trafficked while working as a domestic help. Ajay Malik — a long-serving DRDO scientist who had employed the complainant in October 2016 — was accused of confinement and trafficking after police recovered the complainant from his Dehradun residence on 29.03.2017. A Recovery Memo and the complainant’s Section 164 CrPC statement formed part of the record; subsequent Chargesheets named Shambhu, Ajay Malik, Mohan Ram, Subhash and later Ashok Kumar, who had held a spare key to Malik’s residence.

Ajay Malik filed a Section 482 petition and later sought compounding under Section 320 CrPC supported by a no-objection affidavit of the complainant; the High Court rejected compounding and refused quashing, finding prima facie allegations. Ashok Kumar had moved for discharge under Section 227 CrPC; the Sessions Court refused but the High Court allowed his criminal revision, discharging him on the basis that there was no specific allegation and that the house had two entries, one of which remained free. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the FIR, statements, Recovery Memo, site plan, the complainant’s subsequent affidavits (including a recantation and no-objection), and found material gaps: an alternative exit existed, a mobile phone had been left with the complainant, and the complainant consistently denied confinement by Malik. The Court concluded trafficking and conspiracy allegations against Malik were not borne out by the record, while Ashok Kumar’s discharge was justified by lack of mens rea and specific involvement. Exercising powers under Article 142, the Court quashed proceedings against Malik, dismissed the State’s appeal concerning Ashok Kumar, and clarified that its findings would not affect proceedings against other accused. The Court also directed the Ministries of Labour, Social Justice and Empowerment, Women & Child Development and Law to constitute an expert committee to consider a legal framework for protection and regulation of domestic workers and to submit a report within six months.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 441/2025 & 442/2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8777/2022 & 15131/2024) Case Title: Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.; State of Uttarakhand v. Ashok Kumar and Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr R. Basant (Learned Senior Counsel) for Ajay Malik; Mr Prashant Bhushan (Learned Counsel) for Ashok Kumar For the Respondent(s): Ms Anubha Dhulia (Learned Standing Counsel) for the State of Uttarakhand

(Reported: 2025 INSC 118; Judgment delivered by Surya Kant, J. on 29.01.2025)