Failure to report an incident under POCSO Act does not imply criminal liability without intention; mere delay in reporting is insufficient for prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties finally, by consent.

2. Present Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, initially for quashing the First Information Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 542 of 2024, dated 28^th August 2024 registered with Nandurbar City Police Station, Nandurbar, and by way of amendment for quashing the proceedings in Special Case No.33 of 2024 pending before the learned Special Judge, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Nandurbar, for the offence punishable under Sections 11(3), 12, 16, 17 and 21(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( for short “the POCSO Act”) and Section 75(1)(iii) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act.

3. Taking into consideration the involvement of POCSO Act, we would like to mask the name of respondent No.2.

4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mukul Kulkarni for petitioners, learned APP Ms. P.R. Bharaswadkar, for respondent No.1 – State and learned Advocate Mr. Suniket Kulkarni for respondent No.2.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the Principal of the school where the daughter of respondent No.2 is taking education and petitioner No.2 is a reputed medical practitioner and secretary of the trust which runs the said school. Daughter of respondent No.2 is studying in 5^th standard and the FIR relates to the incident that had allegedly taken place on 27^th August 2024 in the school. The main accused was working as a sweeper with the school. On the day of incident, the school was over by 5.15 p.m. and the girl returned to house around 5.30 p.m. After her return, she disclosed the fact to her mother – respondent No.2 that in the morning when she had gone to the school, it was noticed that the class had already started and therefore, she was standing on the ground. One uncle was sweeping the ground and he told her that she should go to library and see whether there is any teacher available. The girl went there. There was a teacher available and after witnessing teacher sitting there, she came back to the sweeper. Then sweeper asked her, as to whether she can start the net connection from the mobile. She said yes and then the sweeper asked her to accompany him on the upper floor of the school. After they went to the upper floor, the teacher from the library left the library. The girl was standing outside the library and the said uncle / sweeper gave his mobile for starting the net connection, in the hands of the girl. The girl noticed that the net connection was already running / operating and she told the said fact to the said sweeper. Thereafter the sweeper pushed on the button of WhatsApp but then he cut it and he started showing dirty videos from his mobile to the girl. The girl immediately gave mobile to the sweeper and started going down stairs. At that time the sweeper asked her, where she would be available in the afternoon for starting the net connection. At that time she told that she would be near the office. He then asked the girl that after the school timings are over, where she stands / goes. She did not answer the said question. The mother asked her as to whether that sweeper had done anything to her, the girl said no. As the school timings were over, it was not possible to go to school, therefore, respondent No.2 went to one Kalal madam, who is residing near the house of respondent No.2 and told her about the incident. Said Kalal madam had then informed the said fact to petitioner No.1 and class-teacher Mali. Petitioner No.1 had then checked the CCTV footage and told Kalal madam to make the CCTV footage available to the parents of the girl. Kalal madam then went to the house of the informant around 9.30 to 10.00 p.m., when even husband of the informant was available in the ho