A one-day delay in reporting an offense under the PoCSO Act does not constitute willful omission, thus not attracting liability under Sections 19 and 21.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure B Final Report in Crime No. 729/2022 of Ambalamedu Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C. No. 373/2023 on the files of Fast Track Special Court, Perumbavoor. The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the available records.

3. In this case, the prosecution allegation is that the first accused committed offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(ii), 354A(i)(iv) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short), Section 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(p) and 12 r/w 11(i) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘PoCSO Act’ for short). The allegation against accused Nos.2 to 4 is that they failed to inform the occurrence soon after getting the complaint from the victim and thereby committed offence punishable under 21 r/w 19 of the PoCSO Act.

4. While canvassing quashment of the proceedings as against the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 2 and 3, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that regarding an occurrence on 16.11.2022, the student gave a complaint to the Principal on 17.11.2022 and thereafter, FIR was registered at 22.50 hours on 18.11.2022. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, going by the First Information Statement given by the counsellor, which led to registration of this crime, she stated that on 17.11.2022 the victim forwarded a complaint through WhatsApp of the defacto complainant regarding the occurrence that the first accused subjected her to molestation. But in the First Information Statement given by the school counsellor, nothing was stated to show reluctance on the part of accused Nos.2 and 3 in the matter of failure to inform the police. It is also submitted that in regard to an occurrence on 16.11.2022, it was reported by the victim to the Principal on 17.11.2022, for which crime was registered on 18.11.2022, and there was no willful reluctance on the part of the petitioners herein to inform the matter to the police and therefore, offence under Section 21 r/w 19 of the PoCSO Act would not get attracted in this matter. Hence, the quashment prayer would succeed.

5. Repelling the above contention, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even though in the First Information Statement, nothing was stated regarding failure on the part of accused Nos.2 and 3, in the additional statement given by the school counsellor, specific allegation was stated to the effect that there was reluctance on the part of the Principal to inform the occurrence to the Police on the assertion that if the occurrence would be reported to the Police, the victim would have to appear before the Court on multiple times, and the same would be an ordeal to her and the Principal also took a stand that the first accused also had family and children and the same would be fatal to him also. It is stated further by the counsellor who had given the FIS that Shylaja Teacher/Accused No. 3 had also shown hesitation to report the matter and tried to avoid registration of the case.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the counsellor also stated in the additional statement that, thereafter, there was a meeting at the school at 12 pm on 18.11.2022, including the school staff, PTA President, Municipal Vice Chairman, and at the meeting, it was decided to lodge a complaint.

7. On scrutiny of the materials, it appears that initially in the FIS, delay on the part of the Principal and Shylaja teacher, the petitioners herein, was not disclosed. But in the subsequent statement at the instance of the counsellor, reluctance on the part of them in the matter of reporting the occurrence so as to register case in a sessions matter, for multiple reasons as argued by the learned Public Prosecutor i