Case Law Details
1. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition seeking quashment of charge-sheet filed against him by jurisdictional police in the criminal court alleging the commission of offence under Section 21 (2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called as “P0SCO Act”).
2. The aforesaid quashment has been sought by the petitioner on the following factual backdrop:-
2.1 The petitioner is Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya (Central School). At the time of alleged incident he was posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kanker. On 20.8.2015, co-accused/peon of the school Shri Indrajeet Thakur is said to have been committed penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of Section 4 of the POSCO Act with victim/minor grandson of respondent No. 2 studying in Class-III, which is offences punishable under Section 4 of the POSCO Act read with Sections 377, 506 Part-II and 511 of the IPC. Alleged incident was said to be reported to the petitioner in the capacity of Principal of the School by respondent No. 2 on 21.8.2015 at about 8 a.m. Before the petitioner could complete his inquiry/investigation at his own school level, respondent No. 2 lodged the F.I.R. on the same day at 10.30 a.m. to the jurisdictional Police Station Kanker for the aforesaid offences and Crime No. 289/2015 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 377 & 511 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POSCO Act. Immediately thereafter on the next day i.e. 22.8.2015 the petitioner was also arrested by Kanker Police for offence punishable under Section 21(2) of the POSCO Act alleging that he being Principal of the school failed to report the commission of offence under subsection (1) of Section 19 of the POSCO Act in respect of the offence committed by sub-ordinate co-accused Indrajeet Thakur and sent him to jail and he was released by this Court vide order dated 9.9.2015. The jurisdictional police has thereafter filed consolidated chargesheet against co-accused Indrajeet Thakur for offences under Sections 377, 511 & 506 Part-II of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POSCO Act and for offence under Section 21(2) of the POSCO Act against the petitioner.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved against the submission of charge-sheet against him for offence punishable under Section 21(2) of the POSCO Act, the petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition particularly questioning initiation and continuance of the prosecution on the ground that continuance of the petitioner’s prosecution is nothing but clear abuse of process of the law and would submit that he could not be tried along with co-accused, who is being tried for the principal offences alleged to be committed by co-accused. It is further case of the petitioner that unless the commission of principal/main offences by co-accused Indrajeet Thakur are established by the prosecution under Sections 377, 506 Part-II and 511 of the IPC and Section 4 & 6 of the POSCO Act beyond reasonable doubt and thereafter only on the establishment by the prosecution that the petitioner had knowledge of such an offence having been committed and he has intentionally omitted to report the information to the requisite authority as defined in Section 19(1) of the POSCO Act, he can be made criminally liable. In the present case, commission of principal offences against co-accused Indrajeet Thakur is yet to be established in pending trial and therefore, the impugned initiation and continuance of prosecution against the petitioner for offence under Section 21(2) of the POSCO Act deserves to be quashed.
3. Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that initiation and continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner for offence under Section 21(2) of the POSCO Act for non-reporting the commission of offence by co-accused Indrajeet Thakur under Section 4 of the POSCO Act as envisaged under Section 19(1) of the POSCO Act is nothing but sheer abuse of process of the law as co-accused Indrajeet Thakur is still facing trial and it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that he has committed offences under Section 377, 506 Part-II, 511 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POSCO Act and unless and until he is convicted for the aforesaid offences, there is no reason to implicate the petitioner for offence under Section 21(2) of the POSCO Act for non-reporting the commission of the Act under Sections 4 & 6 of the POSCO Act. He would further submit that the prosecution ought to have waited till the principal offences for which co-accused Indrajeet Thakur is charged are determined finally by the jurisdictional criminal Court/Special Judge (POSCO). He would further submit that simultaneous prosecution of the petitioner with coaccused Indrajeet Thakur, before the co-accused is held guilty for the principal offences, runs contrary to the settled law in this behalf. He would also submit that even otherwise, he was not having exclusive knowledge of offences in question, even otherwise, on 21.8.2015 at 10.30 a.m. the matter was reported to Kanker Police and Kanker Police immediately started investigation and the petitioner was also arrested on 22.8.2015 i.e. on the very next day, therefore, he has no such opportunity to investigate the matter and report the matter to the police as required under Section 19(2) of the POSCO Act, therefore, the initiation and continuance of prosecution even if taking the entire charge-sheet in its face value as it is, does not disclose the prima facie offence under Section 21(2) of the POSCO Act against the petitioner. Therefore, prosecution against the petitioner in the jurisdictional criminal Court being abuse of process of law deserves to be quashed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
