IMPORTANT POINT
Disclosing a child's identity in media without proper authorization violates the POCSO Act, regardless of the underlying allegations being false.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash Annexure.A2 charge in Crime No.2/2021 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as S.C. No.441/2022 on the files of the Special Court (for the trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [hereinafter referred as ‘POCSO Act’ for short]), Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available.

3. In this matter, the prosecution allegation is that, the accused/petitioner herein, who has been running a youtube channel by name ‘True TV’ - True Satellite Communication Pvt. Ltd. owned by him, with intention to increase rating of his channel, disclosed the identity of the victim of POCSO Act offences in Crime No.2338/2020 of Kadakkavoor Police Station. The specific allegation is that, starting from 01.09.2020, the accused published necessary inputs, including the photographs of the father of the victim, neighbors and grandfather, who is the defacto complainant herein, in his youtube channel. It is on this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 228(A) of IPC as well as under Sections 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he did not disclose anything regarding the identity of the victim, though photograph of the father of the victim published through the video. Therefore, the offences alleged against the petitioner would not attract in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for quashment of the proceedings. Grounds C, D and E are specifically raised to pursue the relief. The same are as under:

C. In the present case, the petitioner has never exhibited the name of the victim. Petitioner was the first person in the media who had found the plight of the real victim who is the mother and has aired her plight. He had exhibited the monster behind the case who has foisted this unpardonable offence on the father of the husband of the real victim. The so-called victim’s father in his name has lodged a complaint against the petitioner under section 23 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner has never exhibited any information of the son who had been used in the case by the monster husband of the accused mother. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet at the Court of the Additional District Judge (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram. The Court of the Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, took cognizance of the offence alleged and directed that summons be issued to petitioner.

D. The actions of the petitioner has never impaired the dignity of any child which has the paramount duty to be safeguarded by the society. Here in this case the petitioner has never aired any details of the so-called victim. He has only exhibited the complainant of the FIR No. 2 of 2021 of Cyber Police Station Thiruvananthapuram Rural as he himself has exhibited his name in the complaint. The fact is that, the complainant/ estranged husband of the accused in Crime No. 2338 of 2020 of Kadakkavoor police Station on whom the petitioner had aired the story is the real “demon” who has made the so-called victim's son to allege false hood on his biological mother. This was done for the benefit of the complainant in Crime No.. 2 of 2021 of Cyber Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram Rural. The complainant/ father does not have the protection given under the POCSO Act. The police were dancing to the tunes of the complainant because of his financial upper-hand and the outreach he had with the political leaders in the area. The monster/complainant has made his son give false statements against his own biological mother. This case has been closed and mo