
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a former chairman of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Thrissur, served in this capacity from 2009 to 2019. The petitioner was implicated in proceedings, allegations included failure to report an offence under Section 19(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, punishable under Section 21 of the Act. The petitioner contended that he had promptly informed the police regarding the case.
The matter pertains to non-reporting of offences against the victim, originally disclosed to the CWC through a letter on February 5, 2014. However, the letter did not detail specific abuse. The petitioner claimed to have reported the matter to the police the next day.
Contention of the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that he had reported the matter promptly to the police over the phone and documented the same in the relevant file with the endorsement “directed to police” dated February 6, 2014. He contended that the non-obstante clause in Section 19 of the POCSO Act does not exclude the applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), requiring prior sanction for prosecution of public servants. The petitioner emphasized the limited infrastructure of the CWC in 2014, stating that the reporting was carried out in good faith.
Contention of the Respondent
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, as a public servant, failed in his duty to report the offence to the police, violating the mandate under Section 19 of the POCSO Act. It was contended that the non-obstante clause in Section 19 overrides any conflicting provisions of other laws, including Section 197 of the CrPC.
Court’s Observations
Justice K. Babu noted, “Section 19 of the POCSO Act casts a mandate on any person to report the commission of an offence. The mandate to report does not relate to his official character. The mandate to report contained in Section 19 of the POCSO Act is to be performed in his private capacity.” The Court analyzed Section 42A of the POCSO Act and concluded that the non-obstante clause in Section 19 is limited to overriding conflicting provisions in the CrPC. Citing Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013) and State of Maharashtra v. Maroti (2022), the Court emphasized the importance of prompt reporting under the Act.
The Court observed that the petitioner received information on February 5, 2014, and reported it the next day, fulfilling his obligation under Section 19. It found the petitioner’s defense to be based on “sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts.”
The Court expressed dismay at the police for disclosing the victim’s identity, noting that such actions contravene provisions under the POCSO Act and other laws, stating:
“Those provisions and guidelines manifest that the interest of the victim of sexual offences are to be taken care of by the judiciary, executive, and all organs of the State. It is painful to note that the police in the present case failed to protect the paramount interest of the victim in this regard.”
Court’s Order
The Court held that the petitioner had discharged his duty under Section 19 in his private capacity and quashed the criminal proceedings against him. It directed the State police to ensure strict adherence to provisions that prohibit disclosure of victims’ identities, mandating compliance by all members of the police force. The Court clarified the safeguard under Section 19(5) of the POCSO Act, which ensures the child’s protection and care after reporting an offence.