Can't allow commodification of children, says HC; refuses to quash FIR against couple for buying kidnapped minor girl

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against a couple for buying a kidnapped 3-year-old girl because they could not bear children of their own following a compromise between the feuding parties, saying it cannot condone ''commodification of children''.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while also declining to quash the case against the woman who abducted the child, said kidnapping and trafficking of children are serious offences and granting relief to the accused will send out a message that severity of crimes against children can be mitigated through private agreements.

''The idea that a girl child can be subjected to a transaction, where her custody is negotiated as if it was a piece of property, challenges the very principles of rule of law...This Court though takes note of the parents' decision to reach a settlement, it cannot condone a practice that treats a minor girl as a tradable commodity,'' said the judge in a recent order.

''Such a practice of compromising cases which involves kidnapping of innocent minor children cannot be allowed and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed based on such settlements. It is crucial to set a precedent that unequivocally condemns the act of kidnapping and trafficking of children, ensuring that rule of law prevails in the society,'' the court said.

The minor girl and her two-year-old brother were kidnapped by their neighbour in 2017 and sold to the accused couple for Rs 20,000. The boy, however, was later dropped at his home as he didn't stop crying.

The couple sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that they were not aware of the fact that the minor girl was kidnapped and claimed the child now loved them.

The girl was recovered after three years.

The parents of the child said they had no objection if the couple adopted her to continue to have her custody.

Rejecting all arguments, Justice Sharma said the case brought to light the critical question of ''commodification of children''.

The judge said that although there was a dilemma ''between the rigors of law and emotional attachment'' in the present case, law cannot side with those who are on the ''opposite side of law'' and ''court has to stand by those who cannot stand by themselves''.

''The argument repeatedly put forth with force that she is attached to the kidnappers/ offenders, and therefore, the FIR be quashed has to be rejected by this Court with the same force since the crime in question cannot be obliterated by the fact that the kidnappers have looked after the child,'' the court said.

''The fact remains that they had got the child kidnapped, made payment of money to separate the child from the biological parents and her siblings, which is a crime under the law,'' the court underlined, adding that it is for the State and courts to ensure there is strong deterrence that acts as a barrier and creates a safe environment for children.

The court said society relies on a legal system that upholds the principles of law and justice and protects its most vulnerable members.

''In the face of a crime against a minor girl child, the Court's duty is to ensure that justice is not only served, but the sanctity of child's rights is preserved, reinforcing the unequivocal message that children are not tradable entities, and their safety and well-being is non-negotiable,'' the court said.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)