By Tanishka Shah<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed a first information report (FIR) against a Christian missionary and Aadhaarshila Sansthan office-bearer in a case involving allegations of child trafficking related to adoptions conducted 15 years ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The petitioner was accused of failing to provide information to the City Superintendent of Police regarding the adoption of two children from his orphanage. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) alleged that the children were residing at Bal Bhawan post-adoption. However, the petitioner contested this claim, asserting that the children were actually staying at the Central India Academy hostel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The NCPCR filed charges under Sections 370 (trafficking of persons) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court said that the adoptions had been conducted in compliance with legal procedures and were approved by the Family Court. He stated, \u201cThe competent court considered the Adoption Committee’s report and declared the children legally free for adoption. This order was never contested, and the respondent’s actions cannot be justified solely based on emerging doubts.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court criticized the NCPCR for breaching Section 3(xi) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which mandates the protection of a child\u2019s privacy and confidentiality throughout the judicial process. It noted, \u201cThe respondents violated this provision by disclosing the names of the children in their communications.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court denounced the NCPCR\u2019s actions as overreach, asserting that revisiting the adoption process served no legitimate purpose. Justice Dwivedi observed, \u201cThe prosecution appears to be driven by ill-intention, aimed at tarnishing the petitioner\u2019s reputation. Such malicious proceedings cannot continue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court invoked its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, concluding that criminal proceedings motivated by personal vendetta or malice must be annulled. Consequently, the FIR was quashed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n