Detailed Facts of the Case:

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the final report of Ambalamedu Police Station, Ernakulam, pending before the Fast Track Special Court, Perumbavoor. The Petitioners were Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Principal and the Teacher) in the case, with the primary allegation against Accused No. 1 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Prosecution Allegations:

The main allegation was that the first accused committed offences under Sections 354, 354A, and 506 of the IPC, as well as under Sections 7, 8, 9(p), 10, and 11 of the POCSO Act. The petitioners, who were the school principal (accused No. 2) and a teacher (accused No. 3), were charged under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act for failing to inform the police promptly after receiving a complaint from the victim, a student.

Contentions of the Petitioners:

The petitioners contended that they did not wilfully delay reporting the incident to the police. The victim had informed the principal about the incident on 17.11.2022, and the police were notified the next day, 18.11.2022, at 10:50 p.m. The petitioners argued that there was no undue delay or reluctance on their part, and the crime was reported within a reasonable time.

Prosecution’s Argument:

The prosecution, however, argued that in an additional statement given by the school counsellor, it was revealed that the petitioners hesitated to report the crime. It was claimed that the principal expressed concern about the impact on both the victim and the accused’s families, which delayed the complaint. Furthermore, a meeting was held on 18.11.2022, where the decision to lodge a complaint was made.

Court’s Observations:

The court observed that the delay in reporting was only one day, and there was no wilful or deliberate omission by the petitioners to inform the police. The court noted that under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, any person aware of an offence must report it within a reasonable time, but a slight delay does not necessarily attract criminal liability. The court found that the petitioners had, in fact, reported the crime within a reasonable time and that the provisions of Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act did not apply to this case.

Court’s Order:

The court allowed the petition and quashed the final report against the petitioners. The proceedings pending before the Fast Track Special Court, Perumbavoor, against accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Principal and the Teacher) were also quashed.

– Deeksha Rai