The court ruled that procedures regarding the protection of minors' identities and appropriate investigations must be strictly adhered to, ensuring justice and safeguarding against abuses of power in sexual assault cases.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as „CrPC‟) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Delhi Commission for Women.

2. It is submitted in the Petition that the Petitioner is the Chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women (hereinafter referred to as „DCW‟), a Statutory Body, formed under the Delhi Commission for Women Act, 1994.

3. Briefly stated, the FIR No. 1553/2015 under Section 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟) and Section 4/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as „POCSO Act‟), was registered at Police Station Burari, by a minor girl, aged 14 years along with her mother, who approached the Respondent No. 2/SHO, Burari wherein allegations were made of a kidnapping and being kept in confinement and subjected to sexual assault. The minor girl was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 05.01.2016 where her Statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded, in which she stated that she did not blame any person for committing an offence against her. It was directly contradictory to the First Information Report in which the name of the accused was clearly mentioned. This statement under Section 164 CrPC became the basis for release of the accused on bail vide Order dated 12.01.2016. Thereafter, on 25.01.2016, the minor victim wrote a Letter to Hon‟ble Chief Minister of Delhi stating as to how she had been intimidated and coerced by the accused persons into giving a false statement under Section 164 CrPC. This Letter was forwarded by the Office of Hon‟ble Chief Minister to the Delhi Police, for immediate action. However, despite receiving this Letter, the Police chose not to seek the cancellation of bail or to get the statement of the victim afresh. However, the Charge-Sheet was filed on 19.02.2016, before the concerned Court.

4. On 15.05.2016, the minor prosecutrix suddenly disappeared, a day before she was directed to appear before the learned Trial Court in FIR No. 1553/2015. The mother of the victim, as recorded in the subsequent FIR, appeared before the learned Trial Court on 16.05.2016 and narrated that the accused and his family had threatened the prosecutrix and her family and most likely they have kidnapped the prosecutrix.

5. The Court directed the Respondent No. 5, Mrs. Meena Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix, to file a Complaint before the Police. On 17.05.2016, she managed to get a missing person report registered at DCP, North's Office, after having failed to get a response from Police Station Burari.

6. FIR No. 254/16 under Section 363/506/34 of IPC was registered on 19.05.2016, in regard to the threats received by the prosecutrix and her family members.

7. Prosecutrix was recovered by the Police on 26.05.2016. The MLC was conducted but the prosecutrix refused to get her internal examination done. The custody of the prosecutrix, instead of being handed over to the parents, was sent to a Children's Home by the Police, with the ulterior objective of suppressing the truth.

8. On 27.05.2016, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 CrPC wherein she did not allege any wrong doing. She in her dying declaration given to the Coordinators of the DCW stated that