Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. Velmurugan, J.
News Tamil 24x7 represented by its Editor : Anand Prabhakar – Petitioner
versus
Shruthi Thilak and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.R.C.No.2330 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.18005 of 2024
Decided on 3.3.2025
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 23 and 33 read with Section 74 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Offence of exposing identity of victim and her family details – As per Section 33 of POCSO Act, Special Court may take cognizance of any offence, without accused being committed to it for trial – Section 33 of POCSO Act is very clear that no committal proceedings is necessary – There is no bar for Special Judge to forward complaint to Police official to register case and to investigate the matter – No prejudice would be caused to petitioner by registering case and investigation to be conducted by jurisdictional police – It will reveal whether petitioner had violated Section 19 of POCSO Act and also Section 23(iv) of POCSO Act – There is no abuse of process of law – Offences under POCSO Act are cognizable offence and police should register case straight away and conduct investigation, without obtaining any order/permission or direction from Court – Special Court is also empowered to take cognizance of offence, upon police report – No illegality in order passed by Special Judge. (Paras 12, 13, 14 and 15)
Result: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to call for the records and to set aside the order dated 22.05.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.667 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Offences under POCSO Act Cases, which later culminated into F.I.R in Crime No.23 of 2024 on the file of the sixth respondent-Police.
2. The case of the first respondent/de-facto complainant is that the first respondent/de-facto complainant is facing prosecution in Special S.C.No.69 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Offences under POCSO Act Cases, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 294(B), 352 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 10 read with 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Further, it is the case of the first respondent/ de-facto complainant that she preferred a complaint in Crl.M.P.No.667 of 2024 before the Court of Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Offences under POCSO Act Cases, for the offences under Sections 23 and 33 of POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, against the petitioner. Based on the said complaint of the first respondent/defacto complainant, the Special Court passed the order dated 22.05.2024 and directed the sixth respondent-Police to register an F.I.R. Based on the said direction of the Special Court, the sixth respondent-Police had also registered an F.I.R in Crime No.23 of 2024 on 09.07.2024 against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act.
3. The sum and substance of the complaint made by the first respondent/ de-facto complainant against the petitioner is that on 03.09.2023 and 08.09.2023, the petitioner company had published videos through their YouTube Channel namely “News Tamil 24x7” had revealed the name of the family members of the victim and exposed the identity of the victim. The video contravened the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nipun Saxena and another Vs Union of India reported in 2019 (2) SCC 703 (See Para 50.1). The first respondent/defacto complainant invoked jurisdiction of the Court of Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Offences under POCSO Act Cases, under Sections 31 and 33(9) of POCSO Act for penal action under Sections 23(2) and 23(3) of the POCSO Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Special Court in Crl.M.P.No.667 of 2024, the petitioner herein has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.
4. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.05.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.667 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Offences under POCSO Act Cases. Based on the abovesaid impugned order, the sixth respondent-Police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.23 of 2024 on 09.07.2024 for the offence under Section 23(4) of POCSO Act, 2012. It is seen from the records, the first respondent/ de-facto complainant preferred a complaint in SR.No.864 of 2024, against the petitioner before the Court of Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Offences under POCSO Act Cases, for the offences under Sections 23 and 33 of POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Special Court passed an order dated 22.05.2024, observing that though the complainant has not followed the provisions under Sections 154(1) and 154 (3) of Cr.P.C, directed the sixth respondent-Police to register a case and investigate the matter. Based on the said order, the sixth respondent-Police has also registered an F.I.R as referred above. Challenging the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the Special Court, directing the sixth respondent- Police to register an F.I.R and also to grant stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.23 of 2024 dated 09.07.2024 on the file of the sixth respondent pending disposal of this petition, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Special Court is erroneous. The Special C
POCSO Cases – There is no bar for Special Judge to forward complaint to Police official to register case and to investigate the matter – Offences under POCSO Act are cognizable offence and police sho....
The Special Court has the authority to direct police to register an F.I.R. under the POCSO Act, and such directions, despite procedural flaws, do not constitute illegality.
(1) Provision of Section 23 of POCSO which protects child victims of sexual abuse from unwarranted intrusion into privacy, harassment and mental agony has to be strictly enforced – Provision cannot b....
The court upheld the applicability of POCSO Act offences while quashing charges under the JJ Act, affirming that the police could investigate without a Magistrate's order.
The court clarified that taking cognizance of an offence requires applying judicial mind to the complaint, and mere examination of the complainant does not suffice.
(1) Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable against order passed rejecting application filed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.(2) Intelligence Officer can file compl....
Victims have the right to be informed and heard regarding the outcomes of investigations into allegations against them, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.
Point of law : Article 141 mandates every Court subordinate to the Supreme Court to accept the law laid down by it. There is nothing like any prospective operation alone of the law laid down by the S....
The mandatory nature of the provision for registration of a first information report under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the discretion of the Magistrate in ordering the regist....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
