Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the charge sheet and proceedings in Special CC No.880 of 2018 for offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The case arose from a birthday party held on 30 September 2018 at the petitioner's residence in Prestige Wellington Park apartment complex. The petitioner's nine-year-old daughter celebrated her birthday and invited children from neighbouring apartments. During the party, some children played a dark room game; a child poked another's eye, prompting the petitioner to enter the room to bring the children out. Later that evening, the de-facto complainant, father of one of the child invitees, along with others, confronted the petitioner alleging that he had touched multiple girl children inappropriately in the dark room. The next day, a complaint was registered at Jalahalli Police Station, leading to an FIR under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on 10 November 2018, and the trial court took cognizance on 17 December 2018. During trial, thirteen witnesses were examined, including eight child victims. The petitioner argued that the incident was false and motivated, that the statements of the child witnesses were verbatim similar in violation of Section 25 of the POCSO Act, that the procedure adopted by the trial court contravened Sections 26(1) and 26(4), that cognizance was taken in violation of Section 190(1)(b) CrPC without examining crucial documents or issuing summons, that no medical examination was conducted under Section 27, and that the trial was not concluded within the time frame mandated by Section 35 of the POCSO Act. The State opposed the petition, submitting that all contentions were matters for trial, that eight children had independently reported inappropriate touching, and that the multiplicity of allegations distinguished this case from one based on a single child's testimony. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition. It held that while procedural violations may have occurred, they did not vitiate the proceedings and could be raised during trial or in appeal if necessary. The court emphasised that the presence of multiple child victims alleging sexual assault in the dark room created a strong prima facie case, which required a full trial to determine the truth. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC could not be used to thwart the trial. The court directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Charge Sheet - Scope of Section 482 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - The petition sought quashing of charge sheet and order taking cognizance in a case under POCSO Act where multiple child victims alleged inappropriate touching during a dark room game at a birthday party. Held that where multiple statements corroborate allegations of sexual assault, disputed questions of fact necessitate a full trial, and inherent powers should not be used to scuttle proceedings. (Paras 2, 8) B) POCSO Act - Recording of Evidence - Procedure under Section 26 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 26(1), 26(4) - Contention that the trial court adopted a procedure contrary to Section 26(1) and (4) while recording evidence. Court acknowledged procedural violation but held that such irregularity does not vitiate proceedings and the petitioner can raise all contentions during trial. (Paras 4, 8) C) POCSO Act - Evidence of Child Witness - Similarity of Statements - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 25 - Allegation that the statements of all child witnesses were verbatim similar in violation of Section 25. Court held that the similarity of statements is a matter to be examined by the trial court, and it does not by itself warrant quashing when multiple children have independently alleged misconduct. (Paras 4, 8) D) POCSO Act - Medical Examination - Requirement under Section 27 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 27 - Contention that no medical examination of victims was conducted, violating Section 27. Court held that while the violation exists, it does not vitiate the entire proceedings and can be urged during trial. (Paras 4, 8) E) POCSO Act - Speedy Trial - Compliance with Section 35 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 35 - Argument that evidence was not recorded within 30 days and trial not concluded within one year in violation of Section 35. Court held that delay per se does not vitiate proceedings and the trial should be expedited. (Paras 4, 8) F) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance - Requirement under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 190(1)(b) - Contention that cognizance was taken without examining crucial documents and without issuing summons. Court held that these are procedural aspects to be raised at trial and not grounds for quashing at this stage. (Paras 4, 8) G) Evidence - Child Witness - Corroboration by Multiple Victims - The court emphasised that eight children independently alleged inappropriate touching, which distinguishes this case from one based on a single child's evidence and creates a strong prima facie case warranting trial. (Paras 6, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proceedings in Special CC 880/2018 under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC given alleged violations of Sections 25, 26(1), 26(4), 27, 35 of the POCSO Act and Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where multiple child victims have given statements alleging sexual assault during a dark room game at a birthday party.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that all contentions raised by the petitioner are matters for trial. The court acknowledged procedural violations but stated they do not vitiate proceedings and can be urged during trial. The multiplicity of allegations by eight child victims created a strong prima facie case, requiring full trial. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to scuttle the trial.
Law Points
- inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to scuttle trial when prima facie material exists
- procedural irregularities under POCSO Act do not automatically vitiate proceedings
- multiple child victims' statements constitute strong prima facie case
- disputed questions of fact require full trial
- violations of Sections 25
- 26
- 27
- 35 POCSO Act are matters to be raised during trial or appeal
