Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Wsi Sharmila – Petitioner
Versus
State, GNCT Of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
CRL.REV.P. 302 of 2017 & Crl.M.A. 6672 of 2017 (stay)
Decided On : 19-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prashant Manchanda, Advocate with petitioner in person
For the Respondent:Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP with SI Lichhman, P.S.SIU/Crime Branch, Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution and preliminary inquiry before accepting allegations, especially in cases involving sexual offenses against children. The judgment emphasized the seriousness of summoning an accused in a criminal case and the importance of verifying the truth and veracity of the allegations.
Headnote:
POCSO Act - Registration of FIR - Section 6 POCSO Act, Section 218 IPC - [POCSO Act, Section 6, Section 218 IPC] - The court discussed the application of Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code in the context of directing registration of FIR against the investigating officer. The judgment highlighted the need for caution and preliminary inquiry before accepting allegations, emphasizing the seriousness of summoning an accused in a criminal case and the importance of verifying the truth and veracity of the allegations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an investigating officer, challenged the order directing registration of FIR against him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 218 IPC. The case involved allegations of sexual offenses against a class teacher and the child victim's father. The child victim's statements and medical examinations were central to the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Trial Court had acted in haste and without conducting a preliminary inquiry, and set aside the order directing registration of FIR against the petitioner. It emphasized the need for caution and preliminary inquiry before accepting allegations, and clarified that the decision did not express an opinion on the merits of the allegations.
Issues: The issues involved the acceptance of allegations without corroboration, the need for caution in cases involving sexual offenses against children, and the application of Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 218 IPC in directing registration of FIR against the investigating officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the seriousness of summoning an accused in a criminal case, the need for caution and preliminary inquiry before accepting allegations, and the importance of verifying the truth and veracity of the allegations. It highlighted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases.
Final Decision: The impugned order directing registration of the FIR against the petitioner was set aside, and the trial court was given the option to pass an appropriate order after conducting a preliminary inquiry and satisfying itself about the veracity of the allegations. The decision did not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations.
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 17.04.2017 whereby the Trial Court has directed registration of FIR against the petitioner under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act) and under section 218 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and to get the matter investigated through a senior officer, not below the rank of Inspector.
2. Petitioner was the investigation officer in the case bearing FIR Nos. 827/2016 under sections 354/506 IPC and Section 10/8 POCSO Act Police Station: Aman Vihar against the class teacher of the child victim and case bearing FIR No. 179/2017 under sections 376(2)/376(2)(j)/376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act Police Station: Aman Vihar against the father of the child victim.
3. As per the case of the Prosecution, on 09.08.2016 father of the child victim gave a written complaint in Police Station Aman Vihar against one teacher in the school of the child victim, wherein he alleged that his daughter aged about 13 years studying in class 5th, on 06.08.2016, had told her mother that her class teacher had taken her to a lonely/empty class room and touched her whole body with bad intentions.
4. On the above complaint, Case FIR No. 827/16 under sections 354/506 IPC read with section 10 POCSO Act, was registered against the class teacher at Police Station Aman Vihar. For investigation the case was assigned to W/SI Manisha Sharma.
5. On 17.08.2016, during the investigation, the Investigating Officer W/SI Manisha Sharma examined two friends/classmates of the child victim and their statements were also recorded under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code.
6. Both the friends/classmates of the child victim disclosed in their statements under section 164 Cr. P.C. that the child victim had told them that her father used to rape her at her house in the absence of her mother. They further stated that they had informed about the entire incident to their class teacher.
7. During investigation, on 01.09.2016, the class teacher produced a document (Mafinama/apology letter) allegedly prepared on 08.08.2016, in the presence of the school Principal and several other teachers of the school in the office of the Principal.
8. It was contended that, on 08.08.2016 the class teacher had called the parents of child victim to the school, after being informed about the conduct of the father of child victim by her classmates.
9. The parents of child victim came to the school and the father of the child victim admitted his guilt in front of several other teachers of the school. Subsequent to this a document in the form of “Mafinama”/apology letter was prepared in which the father agreed not to repeat his wrongdoings. The “Mafinama”/apology letter also bears the signature of five teachers of the same school as witnesses. Besides the teachers the “Mafinama”/apology letter allegedly bears the thumb impression of the parents of the child victim.
10. The opinion of the FSL Rohini is that the document is genuine, to the extent that the questioned document bears the signatures of the teachers and also bears the thumb impression of the mother of the child victim.
11. In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the child victim leveled allegations against the teacher and he was arrested on 10.03.2017.
12. On 15.02.2017, a case vide FIR No. 179/17 dated 15.02.2017 under sections 376 (2)(f)/376(2)(j)/376(2)(i) I.P.C. read with Section 6 POCSO Act was registered, on the statement of the classmates of the child victim, against the father of the child.
13. The classmates had alleged in their statement that the child victim used to tell them that “her father is a bad person. He used to rape (Galat Kaam) the child victim in the absence of her mother”. Father of the child victim was arrested on 17.02.2017.
14. On 17.02.2017, the victim child was medically examined through W/SI Nishu, P.S Aman Vihar at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital vide MLC No. 43A in which the victim
