Mere Failure To Report POCSO Offence Is An Offence: Kerala HC Dismisses Cottage Owner's Plea To Quash POCSO Case
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition to quash a POCSO case against an owner of a cottage who was accused of not reporting two separate incidents of alleged rape of minors in her cottage to the police under Section 21 read with Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act.
The Court explained that the ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 21(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 was mere failure to report the commission of an offence under Sections 19(1) or 20 of the POCSO Act.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “Thus, the ingredient to constitute offence u/s. 21(1) is mere failure to report the commission of an offence u/s. 19(1) or u/s. 20. Similarly, section 21(1) would attract when the Special Juvenile Police or police authorities fails to register crime on getting such information. As per section 21(2), failure to report commission of an offence u/s. 19(1) by any person being in charge of any company or an institution (by whatever name called) in respect of a subordinate under his control, is an offence.”
Advocate Peeyus A. Kottam appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George represented the respondents.
There were two separate incidents where the 2nd accused, who was the owner of a cottage, was accused of providing rooms to other accused involved in the rape of minor victims.
The prosecution alleged the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 r/w Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act by the 2nd accused on the premise that she, being friends of the 1st accused, provided him a room in her Cottage without satisfying the requirements to run such a cottage, and thereby facilitated sexual assault against the minor victim who later became pregnant.
The prosecution also alleged that the 2nd accused had failed to inform of the crime to the police in tune with the mandate of Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, and therefore was liable to be prosecuted for the offence of Section 19(1) r/w 21 of the POCSO Act.
The High Court explained that “as per section 21(2), failure to report commission of an offence u/s. 19(1) by any person being in charge of any company or an institution (by whatever name called) in respect of a subordinate under his control, is an offence.”
Thus, the Court observed that going by the prosecution’s allegations, the involvement of the 2nd accused in the matter of providing room to the 1st accused to subject the respective victims to aggravated forms of sexual assault, and failure to inform the police was prima facie.
“Thus, going by the prosecution allegations, the involvement of the 2nd accused in the matter of providing room to the 1st accused to subject the respective victims to aggravated forms of sexual assault, and failure to inform this to the police can be gathered prima facie…Thus it is clear that the petitioner herein failed to inform the case before the police as mandated u/s. 19(1) of the POCSO Act, after providing room to the 1st accused to commit serious offences,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petitions.
Cause Title: Sheela v. State Of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:68148)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Peeyus A. Kottam
Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George; Advocates Ramesh P and Sangeerthana M
