[POCSO Act] Mandatory For Any Person Having Knowledge Of Offence To Inform Police Authorities: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that any person knowing about the commission of an offence against a child under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act must inform the police or Special Juvenile Police Unit (SPJU) irrespective of whether the concerned person is a parent of the child or friend.

The Court was hearing a plea of a victim's mother seeking quashing of an application pending before the trial court to add her as an accused, for failing to report the sexual harassment of her son to the police.

While refusing to quash the application, Justice Deepak Gupta said, "The use of the word 'shall' in Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act makes the intention of the legislature quite clear that it is mandatory for any person having knowledge of the offence to inform the Special Juvenile Police Unit [SJPU] or the local police. It is irrespective of the fact as to whether the concerned person having knowledge of the offence is part of some institution or the parent of the child or a friend etc."

Section 21 of the POCSO Act provides punishment for failure to report or record a case, the Court noted.

The Court also rejected the contention that the mother performed her duty by informing the school authorities by way of an email as per the Child Protection Policy of the School.

"...Statutory provision would override and will have precedence over the guidelines provided under the Child Protection Policy of School. In these circumstances, the petition moved by the mother-'Axx' so as to quash the application itself, does not contain merit," the Court reasoned.

These observations were made in a case wherein a Class X student committed suicide and blamed the school authorities in his suicide note, in 2022.

The mother of the child lodged an FIR under Section 306 IPC besides Sections 6, 8, 18 & 21 of the POCSO Act against the school Principal Surjeet Khanna and head  Mamta Gupta.

It was alleged by the mother that around one year prior to the incident of suicide, boys in the school used to tease the deceased child by calling him gay and used to misbehave with him. A complaint was made to the school management, but no action was taken, due to which the child was suffering from depression. 

An application was moved by the Principal in Trial Court to array the mother as an accused because she allegedly failed to report the sexual harassment of her son to the police.

After considering the submissions, the Court noted that "having regard to the provisions of Section 19 to be read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act, though it cannot be said that the application moved by the Principal itself is bad."

It added that it will be for the Court concerned to apply its judicious mind on the application to decide whether to summon the mother as a proposed accused or not because the application can neither be considered to have been moved under Section 319 CrPC nor under Section 190 to be read with Section 193 CrPC.

Justice Gupta added that, in the present case, whether the final report under Section 173 CrPC as submitted by the police to prosecute the accused (including the Principal Mrs. Surjeet Khanna) contained enough material against the mother, needed to be considered by the Special Court.

Consequently, the plea was dismissed.

Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-36154-2023) and for respondent No.2 (in CRM-M-44425-2023)

Indira Jai Singh, Sr. Advocate (through Video Conferencing) with Mr. Ganesh Sharma, Rohin Bhatt, Abhijeet Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioners (CRM-M-44425-2023) and for respondent No.2 (in CRM-M-36154-2023)

Randhir Singh, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent No.1.

ADS Sukhija, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 62