SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1305

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Teja Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 748 of 2024
Decided On : 13-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. HS Shrimali, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA.

Victims have the right to be informed and heard regarding the outcomes of investigations into allegations against them, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376

(D), 365, 342 & 34 - POCSO Act - Sections 3/4 - Procedural error in submission of negative Final Report - Victim/complainant denied opportunity to protest against findings - Court emphasizes the right of the victim to be informed and heard in accordance with natural justice principles. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9)

(B) POCSO Act - Jurisdiction and cognizance - Special Court's authority to take cognizance of offences under POCSO Act and related charges - Importance of proper procedural compliance to safeguard victim's rights. (Paras 6, 7, 9)

Facts of the case:
The complainant filed an FIR alleging gang rape and related offences, but the police investigation led to a negative report regarding POCSO charges, raising concerns about procedural errors in handling the case.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the victim was deprived of her right to protest against the negative report and emphasized the need for proper jurisdictional handling of POCSO cases.

Issues: The main issues included the procedural errors in the handling of the FIR and the victim's right to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the victim must be informed of the investigation's outcome and allowed to protest against the findings, reinforcing the principle of natural justice.

Result: The order of the Judicial Magistrate was quashed, and the case was directed to be handled appropriately under POCSO provisions.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:

  1. The court emphasizes that victims have the right to be informed about the outcomes of investigations concerning allegations against them and to be heard, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles. [judgement_subject]

  2. Procedural errors were identified in the handling of the case, particularly regarding the submission of a negative final report under the POCSO Act in a case involving allegations of sexual offences. The victim was deprived of the opportunity to protest against the findings, which is against the principles of natural justice. [paras 3, 4, 5, 8]

  3. The case involved an FIR lodged for serious offences, but the investigation resulted in a negative report, which was improperly submitted to a court not empowered to take cognizance of offences under the POCSO Act. This procedural irregularity impacted the victim's right to be heard. [paras 2, 3]

  4. The court highlighted that the victim or complainant has the right to protest against a negative final report, which can be treated as a criminal complaint, and the court has the authority to order further investigation or take cognizance based on such protests. [paras 4, 5]

  5. Proper communication of investigation results to the victim is mandated, especially when a negative report is filed, to uphold principles of natural justice and ensure the victim's right to be informed and to make representations. [para 5]

  6. The jurisdictional and procedural requirements under the POCSO Act were not properly followed. The investigation and reporting should have been directed to a Special Court with the authority to handle POCSO offences, and the report should have been submitted accordingly. [paras 6, 7]

  7. The court found that the magistrate failed to independently assess the case and did not provide the victim an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance, which constitutes a legal error. The order passed by the magistrate to proceed was therefore set aside. [paras 8]

  8. The order of the court was to quash the magistrate’s order to take cognizance of the offence and to direct the police to send the report to the appropriate Special Court for POCSO cases. The victim must be given an opportunity to be heard once the proper proceedings are initiated. [para 9]

  9. To prevent future procedural lapses, the court ordered that police authorities be instructed to forward final reports involving POCSO offences to the appropriate Special Court, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and safeguarding victims' rights. [para 10]

  10. The accused shall remain on bail, and the existing bail orders are maintained. The case should proceed with proper legal procedures once the investigation report is appropriately filed and the victim is given the opportunity to be heard. [para 9]

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.


ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

The instant Criminal Writ Petition has been preferred on behalf of the complainant/victim of a case seeking indulgence of this Court for issuance of certain directions to the police officials concerned to conduct further investigation in the matter.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, briefly stated the facts of the case are that an FIR got lodged at the instance of the petitioner herein for an offence of gang rape, kidnapping, illegal confinement punishable under Section 376(D), 365, 342 & 34 of the IPC as well as the offence of penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The matter was investigated by the police, however, after investigation, to a large extent, the offence was not found proved. It was the opinion of the Investigating Officer that only the offence under Section 363 of the IPC and 84 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, was found against Mahendra Bishnoi and Ashok Bishnoi and accordingly, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. came to be submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class.

3. While going through the niceties of the matter, a serious deformity and processual error has been noticed. It was the grief of the victim/complainant that an offence punishable under POCSO Act was committed upon her. After investigation the said allegation was not found proved. This court feels that an opportunity to make protest against the investigational approach and finding has to be provided to the victim/complainant so that he or she may have an occasion to plead for taking cognizance of the alleged offence before the court competent to take cognizance. Assuming for a movement that it was a simpliciter case of offences related to POCSO Act in which after investigation a negative final report is chalked out than the Final Report ought to have been submitted in the POCSO Court. Being a Special Cout, the cognizance of offence can be taken by the Special Court only. Even in such cases, after lodging of the FIR the same is supposed to be forwarded to the Court of Special Judge POCSO Act cases in compliance of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. Here in this case, though there were allegations pertaining to POCSO Act also but to the extent of the above, a negative Final Report has been submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st class. Judicial Magistrate 1st class who is not empowered to take cognizance of offence under POCSO Act. In this situation the victim/complainant has been debarred and deprived of making a protest against Final Report and pray for taking cognizance which is against the spirit of law and justice.

4. There is no conflict in the legal position that upon filing of the negative Final Report/Closure Report; the victim/complainant has a right to move a protest petition. The said protest petition can be taken and treated as a criminal complaint. In the event of receiving a closure report the criminal court has power to send the matter back to the police to conduct further investigation in the matter. The court may take cognizance of the offence based on report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. because the opinion of the Investigating Officer is neither conclusive nor binding upon the Court. If the Court feels that inquiry should be done as contemplated under chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. It shall treat the protest petition as a criminal complaint and where after victim/complainant can be examined under Section 200 and other witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. If any assistance is sought from the agency then under Section 202(2) of Cr.P.C. directions can be given to the concerned which is not limited to the police only. After completion of inquiry, it may either dismiss the complaint under Section 203 or issue process against the accused under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. In view of the above proposition of law it can be said that in this case the victim has been debarred from taking resort of law and she has been deprived from making prayer for venti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top