At What Stage In Criminal Proceeding Can An Accused Alleging False Implication Move Plea U/S 22 POCSO Act ?: Rajasthan HC To Examine

The Rajasthan High Court is set to examine the question as to at which stage in a criminal proceeding, an accused having evident proof to show that he has been falsely implicated in a POCSO matter, can move an application under Section 22 of the POCSO Act, which deals with Punishment for false complaint or false information.

Essentially, the Bench of Justice Uma Shankar Vyas has issued a notice to the State of Rajasthan and original complainant while dealing with a criminal revision petition filed by one Karan Sen challenging the order of the Special POCO court no. 1 Jaipur Metro taking cognizance of offences under the POCSO Act against the petitioner.

The facts in brief

The petitioner, in his plea, averred that he had been falsely implicated in the FIR along with two other named accused and in fact, the alleged victim and her family were demanding extortion money, and since the same was not provided to them, they lodged a false FIR against him.

The plea further submits that the petitioner was having audio-video proof which was given to the police, the petitioner also tried to lodge a cross case with the police, however, the same was not registered, however, subsequently an FIR was lodged by the police against the complainant and others for extortion on order of local magistrate court which was still under investigation, but, in the meanwhile, the petitioner was arrested by the police.

Thereafter, the petitioner was charge sheeted by the Police in the FIR filed from the alleged Victim's side, and the petitioner's cross FIR [registered by way of an order of the Magistraret under S. 156(3)] is still pending.

Threfore, the petitioner contended before the Court that the veracity of the information provided by the complainant in the present FIR could not be said to be correct unless both the FIR are jointly investigated and the correctness of information is established. 

The accused petitioner, therefore, apprised the trial court with the above facts by filing a separate complaint seeking discharge under section 227 CRPC as also requesting the court below to treat the same as a complaint under S.190 Cr. PC read with section 22 of the POCSO Act.

However, it has been contended in the plea that the court, without appreciating all these material facts took cognizance on the chargesheet and dismissed his application. Hence he moved the High Court.

"The court below was apprised by the accused petitioner of the entire chain of events however, without even affording an opportunity of hearing the cognizance on the aforesaid chargesheet was taken, thus the petitioner moved a duly constituted application for treating the said application as a criminal complaint under section 22/33(9) of POCSO Act read with 227/190 Cr.PC for action against the complainant and also informed the court below that an investigation in relation to the same offence which is subject matter of trial is in progress with the same police station thus the court below was obliged to have hold the further trial as required under section 210 CrPC and which was the prayer made by the petitioner but the learned court below however, in utter defiance of the settled proposition of law dismissed the said application of the petitioner," the plea contends.

Thus in the above circumstances, the plea poses certain serious question of law before the Court as under:-

A) "What is the stage of a criminal proceeding at which an accused having evident proof to show that he has been falsely implicated in the matter can move an application under section 22 of the POCSO Act. 2012?"

B) "Whether or not the learned court below committed an error apparent on the face of record by not following the procedure envisaged under section 210 Cr. PC while rejecting the application of the petitioner under section 22 of the POCSO Act, 2012?"

C) "As to whether it is necessary under POCSO Act to face a false and malicious procrastinated trial before an accused can attract provision of section 22 of the POCSO Act, 2012?"

D) "Whether or not since the POCOS ACT. 2012 is a law with inverse criminal jurisprudence that presumes an accused to be guilty unless proven innocent otherwise, then in such a peculiar case the special designated courts of POCOS Act are under much different burden at the time of taking cognizance in teeth of provision of section 22 of the POCOS Act, 2012 when the plea of section 22 is raised at the very conception of the criminal trial?"

E) "What is the correct import of use of words "makes false complaint or provides false information against any person" in section 22 read and use of word words "unless the contrary is proved" used in following section 29 of the POCSO Act in the order of arrangement and whether the two provision of section 22 and 29 are interdependent or not?"

The Court has issued a notice to the State returnable within 2 weeks. Counsel Dr. Abhinav Sharma appeared for the accused/petitioner.

Case title - Karan Sen v. State of Rajasthan

Click Here To Read/Download Order