Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) which quashed FIR No.185/2019 and the chargesheet against the respondent, Dr. Maroti Kashinath Pimpalkar, who was arraigned as accused No.6 for failure to report sexual offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The background of the case involves a complaint lodged by an Assistant Project Officer of the Integrated Tribal Development Project regarding sexual abuse of minor tribal girls residing in a girls' hostel attached to Infant Jesus English Public High School, Rajura. During investigation, it was found that 17 minor girls were abused, and the respondent, a medical practitioner appointed for the hostel, had knowledge of the incidents as revealed by the victims in their statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. Despite the legal obligation under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act to report such offences, the respondent remained silent. The High Court quashed the proceedings against him under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by embarking on an inquiry into the reliability of evidence at the quashing stage. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process of law. Since the victims' statements prima facie indicated that the respondent had knowledge of the sexual assault and failed to report, a legitimate prosecution could not be stifled. The Court restored the FIR and chargesheet against the respondent, directing the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Exercise of inherent power - The High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to reliability of evidence while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC; quashing is permissible only where allegations even if taken at face value do not constitute any offence or where continuance of prosecution would be an abuse of process of law. (Paras 7-9)
B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Reporting Obligation - Section 19(1) and Section 21(1) POCSO Act - Legal duty to report commission of offence - Any person having knowledge that an offence under POCSO Act has been committed must report to Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police; failure to do so is punishable with imprisonment up to six months or fine or both. (Paras 10-11)
C) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Prima facie case - Where the statements of victims recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC indicate that the accused had knowledge of sexual assault and failed to report, the High Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings at the threshold; legitimate prosecution cannot be stifled. (Paras 12-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR and chargesheet against the respondent under Section 482 CrPC for alleged failure to report sexual offences under POCSO Act, when the materials prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 21 read with Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 20.04.2021, and restored FIR No.185/2019 and the chargesheet against the respondent. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the judgment.
Law Points
- Scope of Section 482 CrPC
- Legal obligation to report under Section 19(1) POCSO Act
- Punishment for failure to report under Section 21 POCSO Act
- Prima facie case test for quashing
- Protection of children from sexual offences
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No.1874 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.718 of 2022)
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Dr. Maroti s/o Kashinath Pimpalkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against High Court order quashing FIR and chargesheet under Section 482 CrPC for offence of failure to report sexual assault under POCSO Act.
Remedy Sought
State of Maharashtra sought setting aside of High Court judgment quashing FIR and chargesheet against respondent doctor.
Filing Reason
Respondent, a medical practitioner, failed to report sexual assault of minor tribal girls despite knowledge, violating Section 19(1) POCSO Act.
Previous Decisions
High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) quashed FIR No.185/2019 and chargesheet qua respondent vide judgment dated 20.04.2021 in Criminal Application (APL) No.841/2019.
Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR and chargesheet against the respondent under Section 482 CrPC for alleged failure to report sexual offences under POCSO Act.
Whether the materials on record prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 21 read with Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act against the respondent.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State): The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by embarking on an inquiry into reliability of evidence; the victims' statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC clearly indicated that the respondent had knowledge of the sexual assault and failed to report, constituting a prima facie case under Section 21 POCSO Act.
Respondent: The allegations do not make out any offence; the respondent had no knowledge of the offences; the quashing was justified as continuation would be an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court, while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC, cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability of evidence; quashing is permissible only where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offence. In the present case, the victims' statements prima facie disclosed that the respondent had knowledge of the sexual assault and failed to report, thereby constituting an offence under Section 21 read with Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. Hence, the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings at the threshold, stifling a legitimate prosecution.
Judgment Excerpts
This Court in Shalu Ojha v. Prashant Ojha observed: 'this is an unfortunate case where the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are rendered simply a pious hope of the Parliament and a teasing illusion for the appellant'.
Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an exception and not the rule and it is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist.
The High Court could not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence is reliable or not while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Procedural History
FIR No.185/2019 was registered on 12.04.2019 at Rajura Police Station for offences under IPC, POCSO Act, SC/ST Act, and Maharashtra Black Magic Act. After investigation, chargesheet was filed on 08.06.2019. Respondent filed anticipatory bail application before Sessions Judge on 10.06.2019, which was rejected on 25.06.2019. High Court granted anticipatory bail on appeal. Respondent then filed Criminal Application (APL) No.841/2019 under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR and chargesheet. High Court quashed the same on 20.04.2021. State of Maharashtra appealed to Supreme Court by way of SLP (Crl.) No.718/2022, which was converted into Criminal Appeal No.1874/2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 482, Section 173(2), Section 156(1), Section 155(2), Section 161, Section 164
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Section 19(1), Section 21(1), Section 4, Section 6
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 376AB
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Section 3(1)(w), Section 3(2)(v)
- Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013: Section 3
