IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the applicability of POCSO Act offences while quashing charges under the JJ Act, affirming that the police could investigate without a Magistrate's order.

ORDER :

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.1090/2022 on the files of Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (`POCSO Act’ for short) Offences, Nedumangad, have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short) to quash Annexure-I final report in Crime No.601/2020 of Vattiyurkavu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, and all further proceedings thereof.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records. Even though notice was served upon the 2 ^nd respondent, no appearance.

3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 23(1), 23(3) and 23(4) of the POCSO Act and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (`JJ Act’ for short), by the accused who are the petitioners herein.

4. The prosecution case in a nut shell is that the accused persons, two in numbers, shared common intention to lower the reputation of the child victim, used their mobile phones’ contents and video graphed conversations which would give an impression that the children who acted in `Aamy’ film had been sexually exploited by the director of the film with specific reference to the child victim who had played the key role of the childhood of a famous writer in the film and the accused persons uploaded the video in social media news channel. It is alleged that the said acts of the accused had the effect of lowering the reputation of the child victim and infringing upon her privacy and that the accused persons thereby have made themselves liable for the said offences. The police started investigation on the basis of a petition submitted by the father of the de-facto complainant and submitted final report against the petitioners. The learned jurisdictional Special Court (under the POCSO Act), Thiruvananthapuram, took cognizance upon the said final report for the said offences as against the petitioners.

5. While canvassing quashment of the entire proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised two fold contentions. The first contention raised is that, on the facts of the case, none of the offences would attract, prima facie, and, therefore, the entire proceedings would require quashment. The second contention raised is that offence under Section 74 of the JJ Act is a non cognizable offence as per Section 86(3) of the JJ Act and, therefore, the police officer is not empowered to register crime and investigate the same without the order of a Magistrate. He also raised a contention that offences under Sections 23(1), 23(3) and 23(4) of the POCSO Act also are not cognizable offences. Therefore, the police has no authority to register crime and to investigate the same. Therefore, for the said reason alone, the entire proceedings would require quashment.

6. As far as the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution (`ADGP’ for short) that, in view of Section 33(1) of POCSO Act, a Special Court may take cognizance of any offence, without the accused being committed to it for trial, upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, or upon a police report of such facts. So, insofar as the offence under the POCSO Act is concerned, a Special Court is empowered to take cognizance of any offence on receipt of a complaint of facts which constitute such offence or upon a police report of such fact. In view of the above, police officer is specifically empowered to register and investigate all offences under the POCSO Act, where Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C has no application.

7. Before answering the second contention, I am inclined to consider the first contention. In the instant case, crime was registered based on the statement of the victim. According to the v