2025 KER 30672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
Sindhu S And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Kerala Rep. By Public Prosecutor - Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 9008 OF 2024
Decided On : 11-04-2025
(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 23(4) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 83(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 465, 419, 109, 471, 201 r/w Section 34 - Accused sought to quash proceedings under PoCSO Act alleging conspiracy and forgery related to a news program on drug abuse - The court found that the intent behind the program was to alert the public about drug abuse, and the identity of the survivor was not disclosed, thus no prima facie case was made out. (Paras 1 , 8 , 20 , 21 )
(B) Media Responsibility - The court emphasized the need for media to balance reporting with the rights of individuals, highlighting the importance of obtaining both sides of a story to ensure fairness and justice. (Paras 21 )
Facts of the case:
The accused were charged with conspiracy and other offences for airing a program that allegedly used the voice of a minor survivor without proper consent, intending to defame the government. The program aimed to raise awareness about drug abuse among youth.
Findings of Court:
The court found no prima facie case against the accused, stating that the program did not disclose the identity of the survivor and was intended for public benefit.
Issues: Whether the prosecution could be quashed based on the allegations of identity disclosure and intent behind the program.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the use of the survivor's voice in a doctored form did not constitute a violation of the PoCSO Act, and the intent to inform the public about drug abuse was a noble cause.
Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
ORDER :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Accused Nos.1 to 6 in S.C.No.575/2024 on the files of the Special Court for trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (for short ‘the PoCSO Act’ hereinafter), Kozhikode, have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the following prayer:
To quash Annexure-F final report and the allied proceedings before the Hon’ble Additional District and Sessions Court Kozhikode in S.C.No.575/2024 before the Hon’ble Additional Sessions Court and Fast Track Court for PoCSO Offences, Kozhikode, in the interest of justice, equity and fairness.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Government Pleader - cum - Special Public Prosecutor, in detail.
3. Prosecution case;
The prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 419, 109, 471 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter), Section 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'the JJ Act' hereinafter) as well as under Section 23(4) of the PoCSO Act, by the petitioners herein.
4. The entire prosecution case stems out from a programme telecasted by Asianet News channel owned by Asianet News Network Pvt.Ltd. on 4.11.2022 and in the YouTube channel of Asianet on 10.11.2022 under the caption ‘Narcotics is a dirty business’. Even though the programme was telecasted on 4.11.2022, crime was registered on 4.3.2023. Annexure B is the copy of FIR in Crime No.101/2023 of Vellayil Police Station, Kozhikode. The allegation in the FIR is that accused Nos.1 to 4 hatched conspiracy with intention to defame the image of the Government and telecasted a programme 'Narcotics is a dirty business' as a 'Roving Report' on 10.11.2022 and failed to inform the occurrence regarding a PoCSO Act offence in relation to the child interviewed in school uniform. When final report filed after investigation, the prosecution allegation is that accused Nos.1 to 4 with intention of damaging reputation of the ruling Government, hatched conspiracy and forged video under the caption ‘Narcotics is a dirty business’ as a Roving Report and telecasted through Asianet News channel and Asianet YouTube channel. The specific allegation is that, in order to increase Television Rating Point, (TRP) of Asianet News channel and keep the channel in the top position and to increase its income, the 1st accused, the Executive Editor, who is authorized to plan the programmes of the channel and to permit its telecast, after its scrutiny, had WhatsApp/Zoom meeting with the 2nd accused and decided to make investigative programme and the 3rd accused, who is the Bureau Chief of Asianet, Kannur, agreed for the same. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3, after sharing common intention, decided to include the victim in PoCSO Crime No.989/2022 of Kannur Police Station in the programme. Thereafter, the 3rd accused contacted the father of the survivor, but he refused to give an interview, since their family have been staying in Maharashtra. But, accused Nos.1 to 3 decided to go with the programme and for which, they had used the voice of the victim in Crime No.989/2022 recorded on 9.8.2022 and included the said voice in the programme. The further allegation is that, as part of conspiracy hatched in between accused Nos.1 to 3, they contacted the 4th accused, who is a staff of Asianet News, Kozhikode and prepared the programme showing the daughter of the 4th accused instead of the survivor, with the help of the 5th accused, the video camera man, in between 14.30 hrs and 16.30 hrs on 1.11.2022 with the aid of the 6th accused. The further allegation is that, thereafter, the said video, by impersonating the victim in Crime No.989/2022 through the daughter of the 4th accused, (another child) under the caption ‘Narcotics is a dirty business’ has been telecasted on 4.11.2022 and on 10.11.2022 th
The court ruled that the media's intent to inform the public about drug abuse, while protecting the survivor's identity, did not constitute a violation of the PoCSO Act.
Disclosing a child's identity in media without proper authorization violates the POCSO Act, regardless of the underlying allegations being false.
Section 23 of the POCSO Act applies to any person making comments about a child without authentic information, not just media personnel.
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.
The court cannot quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC based on allegations of defamation without the trial, as it does not determine the merits or conduct a mini-trial.
The court ruled that freedom of the press must prevail, and casual conversations aimed at public awareness about COVID cannot form the basis of criminal proceedings.
Intent to humiliate must be established for offences under the Atrocities Act; mere airing of content without direct involvement does not constitute an offence.
The court upheld the framing of charges against the petitioner for disclosing the identity of a minor victim, establishing a prima facie case based on evidence of involvement in the dissemination of ....
A sting operation conducted in good faith for public interest is exempt from prosecution for defamation if no malafides are present.
Directing an accused to give a voice sample during process of investigation for comparison, would not fall within vice of Article 20(3) as they are only materials for comparison in order to lend assu....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.