'Doctrine Of Sameness' Not Attracted When Victims Differ: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Multiple POCSO FIRs Against School Teacher

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing a petition filed by a school teacher who is accused by the students of sexual assault in multiple FIRs said, "With no certain time and period and the complainants being different, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the same is hit by doctrine of sameness is unacceptable."

The bench also junked the contention of the accused that out of spite or ill-will by people who are inimical towards him in the institution these complaints are generated or brought up by luring the parents of such harassment.

It said, "No parent would come forward and without any rhyme or reason register complaint against the petitioner that too alleging that her child has been sexually abused. It is too far-fetched for this Court, at this juncture, to even consider the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Spite or ill-will against him by other teachers of the institution cannot mean that those who are inimical towards the petitioner want to shoot him from the shoulder of a child through its parents. Such arguments cannot be accepted."

Case Details:

The petitioner Prabhunaika KT is a Physical Education Teacher in KPS School at N.R.Pura. A colleague of the petitioner who also works as a teacher in the same school submitted a report against the petitioner that he has behaved in an uncivilised manner with the girl students and has sexually harassed them. This report was submitted to the BEO of N.R.Pura who in turn made a complaint to the N.R.Pura Police Station where the crime is registered.

Having come to know of the registration of crime against the petitioner, the parents of the students having learnt sexual assault against their children registered crimes on different dates against the petitioner which resulted in multiple FIRs. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was indulging in sexual harassment of those students. It is for that reason crimes for offences punishable under Section 354A of the IPC and Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Act were alleged against the petitioner.

The petitioner approached the court questioning the successive FIRs that are registered against the petitioner for the same offence, by different complainants.

Submissions:

Advocate K.S.Ganesha argued that on the same incident in respect of which a case has already been registered and investigation is underway, successive FIRs could not have been registered and fresh investigation would not have been ordered thereto for the same offence. It would violate the fundamental right of the accused.

The petitioner sought the quashement of multiple FIRs and retention of only one FIR in Crime No.4 of 2022 in which investigation is underway.

Prosecution opposed the plea, while arguing that the complaints registered against the petitioner are by different complainants and, therefore, different FIRs are registered and as such, no fault can be found in the action of the Police in registering different FIRs, in the peculiar facts of these cases and would submit that the matter is still in the stage of investigation and seeks dismissal of the petitions.

Court findings:

The bench noted,

"On a perusal of the complaints so registered, it reveals that the incident had not happened on a single day. In one of the complaints the allegation is that, the petitioner has indulged in such sexual assault on the child for the last one month and in the other complaint for the last two months and in few of the complaints for the last three months. There is no date indicated for the alleged offence. The allegation is common but dates are different. Therefore, it cannot be said that for a solitary incident on a solitary date multiple FIRs are registered."

Further it said, "The crime committed by the petitioner against each individual student is complained of by their parents and the incidents span's over one month to three months. Every fact or facet that is necessary for investigation in each case may vary, as the complainant is entitled to produce such evidence, an instance of which has happened on a particular day against her by the petitioner which would become an offence punishable under Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Act."

It added, "It would have been an altogether different circumstance if all the complaints, though they look the same, would complain of an incident of a particular day."

It then held,

"Every victim who has been subjected to such sexual assault from the hands of the petitioner has complained and the complaints are of different dates, instances vary from period to period and not of a specific date. Therefore, registration of crimes in multiple FIRs against the petitioner, in the peculiar facts of these cases, cannot be found fault with. It is for the petitioner to defend himself for the alleged acts against each of the victim."

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: PRABHUNAIKA K.T v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2015 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 242

Date of Order: 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

Appearance: Advocate K.S.GANESHA for petitioner; HCGP B.J.ROHITH, for R1

Click Here To Read/Download Order