SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 1425

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRAL R. MEHTA, J.
SUJATA SURAJ BHATIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Special Criminal Application No. 10751 of 2021, Criminal Misc. Application (For Vacating Interim Relief) No. 1 of 2022, Criminal Misc. Application (For Extension of Interim Relief) No. 2 of 2022
Decided On : 08-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : R.S. SANJANWALA, TARAK DAMANI.
For the Respondents: P.V. PATADIYA, MOXA THAKKAR.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Sections 7, 8, and 11 - Special Criminal Application for quashing proceedings - Allegations of misconduct against school authorities toward a student - Court found lack of component of 'sexual intention' crucial for the application of POCSO Act - Summons issued under POCSO Act quashed, but proceedings under IPC permitted to continue. (Paras 16, 20, 26)

(B) Criminal procedure - Requirement of prima facie evidence - Court emphasized careful judicial scrutiny before issuing summons under POCSO - Underlying theme of judicial fairness stressed by citing precedents on the necessity of a considered approach in criminal proceedings. (Paras 21, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, accused in a misconduct case involving a minor, sought to quash proceedings for their alleged actions at school, claiming no evidence of sexual intent per POCSO Act.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the essential element of 'sexual intention' was missing from the allegation against the petitioners under the POCSO Act and dismissed those charges while allowing IPC charges to go forward.

Issues: The principal issue was whether the allegations met the required threshold for POCSO Act applicability.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the importance of explicit allegations of 'sexual intention' in justifying the enforcement of POCSO provisions, thereby quashing the complaint under those sections.

Result: Proceedings under the POCSO Act quashed; IPC charges allowed to advance.

Table of Content
1. special criminal application initiation context (Para 1)
2. factual incidents and background of the complaint (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. complaint procedural actions and outcomes (Para 14 , 15)
4. judicial examination of complaint validity (Para 16 , 17 , 20 , 21)
5. court's ruling and quashing of pocso proceedings (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

ORDER :

1. By way of this Special Criminal Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) the petitioners-original accused persons sought to quash the proceedings arising from the Criminal Inquiry Case No. 2 of 2020 filed before the Special Court (POCSO), Surat as well as the order dated 31st August 2021, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Surat issued summons under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 354(b) and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE read with Sections 7 , 8 and 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short “the POCSO Act”) against the present petitioners.

2. The translation of the criminal complaint filed by the complainant is as under:

“(1) I - the complainant took admission of our daughter Namely Drumi in standard 5(C) at Mahidharpura Urban Society English Medium School (MUS) Laldarwaja Surat in the year-2017-18.

(2) On 03.01.2018, at the school, the accused no. 7, the class teacher of the daughter of I - the complainant insulted our daughter and said in the open class “Why are you showing off your body by lifting your skirt, are you insane or a savage.” Therefore, by uttering such words, the daughter of the I - the complainant was insulted in an open class, the daughter of the I - the complainant was very frightened and started crying. Therefore, as the daughter of I - the complainant came home and informed the I - complainant and my wife on 04.01.2018, my wife namely Neha Pranav Mehta went to the school and made oral complaint to the in-charge principal, the accused no. 2. The class teacher accused No. 7 admitted her mistake and declared in writing that she will not make such mistake against the complainant's daughter or any other student and will not make false comments. As she gave such apology letter, I the complainant and my wife did not lodge any complaint against her.

(3) On 27.01.2018, the accused no. 4 asked the daughter of the complainant through the accused No. 7 to take her diary and come to the Resource Room and the accused No. 4 got furious and scolded saying that, you are complaining about the teachers to your parents and made them to apologize. Are you coming to the school for studying or to do such things? After saying this, he inflicted four slaps on the cheek of the daughter of I - the complainant and thereafter made her to stand outside the Resource Room for half an hour as the part of punishment. Therefore, the daughter of the complainant came home and informed all these facts to me the complainant and my wife. Therefore, on 29.01.2018 the wife of I - the complainant clearly wrote in the diary that “If there is any problem due to the complaint of the parent, please inform the parent, do not beat or threaten the child.” Such writing was done in the diary and was sent to the school.

(4) On 31.01.2018, the accused no. 4 asked my daughter to come out of the classroom and scolded loudly in the public in the lobby saying that “You were told not to inform at your home, then why have you complained to your parents?” After saying this, the accused No. 4 again inflicted two or three slaps on the back area and shoulder area of the daughter of I - the complainant and threatened her saying that “If you want to study in the School, you have to do and act as the teachers say.”

(5) On 03.02.2018, 05.02.2018 and 08.02.2018, the accused No. 7 drove ou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top