IMPORTANT POINTS
In exercise of inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to adjudicate on the various factual issues that arise in these case, so as to evaluate as to whether the petitioner accused had knowledge about the commission of the offence as understood in Sec. 19(1) of the POCSO Act, as envisaged in the aforecited rulings, by evaluating factual materials involved in this case. If that is so done, it may amount to shortcircuiting the due procedure of law as the said matter will have to be determined by the trial court itself. Therefore, this Court is refraining from deciding the said factual issue as to whether the petitioner had knowledge about the commission of the act and as to whether she had failed in her legal obligation to convey the said information to the competent Police authorities concerned and whether she has thus committed the offence punishable under Sec. 21(2) of the POCSO Act.

ORDER :

1. The above five Criminal Miscellaneous Cases, viz., Crl.M.C.Nos. 309, 5010, 5013, 5078 and 5080 of 2019 arise out of Crime Nos. 159/2014, 162/2014, 161/2014, 160/2014 and 166/2014 registered at Peringone Police Station and now the said criminal proceedings are pending as sessions case S.C.Nos.87/2015, 90/2015, 89/2015, 88/ 2015 and 91/2015 on the file of the Special Court (Addl. Sessions Court notified to deal with POCSO Cases), Thalassery, Kannur district. Accused No.1 in all the above five cases is a teacher of the ALP School, Perinthatta North (an aided school) and the allegation against him that he has committed sexual assault on various occasions from June, 2013 to January, 2014, on each of the five minor victim girls concerned in these cases, who are the students of the said school and A-1 has committed offences as per Sec. 9(f)(l)(m) read with 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The petitioner herein, who is the headmistress of the abovesaid school, has been arrayed as accused No.2 in each of these five cases and the allegation against her is that, though as the headmistress of the school, she had knowledge about the commission of the abovesaid offences by A-1, who is a teacher in the above school, the petitioner (A-2) has not reported the commission of the said offence to the Police authorities concerned as mandated in Sec. 19(1) of the POCSO Act and therefore, she has committed offence punishable under Sec. 21(2) of the said Act. Accused No.3 in this case is said to be the person in charge of the help desk, who failed to report the commission of the abovesaid offence by A-1 to the authorities and has thereby committed the abovesaid offence punishable under Sec. 21(2) of the Act. Accused No.1 and accused No.3 in the above crimes are not parties in these cases. The State of Kerala has been arrayed as the sole respondent in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings to the limited extent it is directed as against the petitioner herein (A-2). After the registration of the crime in each of these cases, the Police has filed separate final reports/charge sheets in each of these five cases, which has led to the pendency of the abovesaid Sessions Cases before the special sessions court notified to deal with the POCSO cases, Thalassery. It is the case of the petitioner that the abovesaid criminal proceedings to the extent it is directed as against the petitioner herein (A-2) is not sustainable in law and that the prosecution has no case that the petitioner had witnessed the alleged act of sexual assault said to have been committed by A-1 and further that the petitioner has no knowledge about the commission of the offence, etc.

2. The petitioner would point out that, even going by the admitted case of the prosecution, the only allegation raised as against the petitioner herein is that, she, as the headmistress of the school, has not reported about the commission of the abovesaid offences in each of these cases and that the prosecution has no case that the petitioner has done any act or omission so as to be directly or indirectly connected with the commission of the principal offence of sexual assault by the principal offender (A-1) and that the only allegation is that the petitioner has committed the secondary offence of not reporting the commission of offence by A-1 to the Police authorities concerned in spite of allegedly having knowledge about the said commission and that thereby she has committed the “secondary offence” punishable under Sec. 21(2) of the Act.

3. One of the main contentions raised by the petitioner is that an offence in the nature as per Sec. 21(2) of the POCSO Act is broadly akin to the offence as per Sec. 202 of the I.P.C. and is a “secondary offence” in comparison to the offence committed by the principal offender inasmuch as the offence alleged against th