Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Kumaragurubaran - Appellant
Versus
State rep by its The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai & Another - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No. 9396 of 2022 & Crl.M.P.No. 5484 of 2022
Decided On : 21-07-2022
POCSO Act - Quashing of FIR - Headmaster's knowledge of minor girl's pregnancy
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a school headmaster, sought to quash the FIR filed against him for not informing the authorities about the pregnancy of a minor girl who was a student at the school. The petitioner argued that he had no knowledge of the pregnancy and was falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as the headmaster, could not be expected to have knowledge of the minor girl's pregnancy, especially when even the girl's mother did not suspect the pregnancy. The court concluded that the FIR against the petitioner was nothing but harassment and abuse of process of law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the headmaster's lack of knowledge about the minor girl's pregnancy justified quashing the FIR against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to invoke Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, there must be evidence to show that the accused had knowledge of the offence committed against the minor girl. In this case, the lack of suspicion from the girl's family members, including her mother, indicated that the headmaster's knowledge of the pregnancy was highly improbable.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner and directed the police to expedite the investigation against the other accused.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the entire records relating to the Crime No.1/2022, pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.)
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.1 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police filed against the petitioner/A3 for offence punishable under Sections 5(i)(ii) r/w Sections 6 and 21(1) of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') and Section 306 of I.P.C. r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The petitioner/A3 is none other than the Headmaster of the Government Ekalavya Model Residential School, Pattipulam, Chengalpattu District.
3. The F.I.R. shows that the deceased girl was staying in the said school and on 23.12.2021, one teacher informed the defacto complainant that her daughter is complaining stomach pain frequently and asked her to take her back for treatment. Thereafter, the defacto complainant took her daughter to their native place. On 07.01.2022, the defacto complainant left for her job and thereafter, she came to know that her daughter consumed organophosphate (pesticide) and was admitted in the hospital. Later she came to know that her daughter has moved with A1, and as a result of which, her daughter became pregnant. The charge against the petitioner herein is that being the Headmaster, he has not informed the pregnancy of the child to the authorities concerned. Hence, he was also implicated in the case by way of alteration report for the above offence and the same is sought to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the child has developed an affair with A1, which resulted in her pregnancy and she has committed suicide and at that time the fetus was six months old. It is not disputed that the girl was all along with the mother and even the mother was not able to identify the pregnancy and therefore the knowledge of the pregnancy cannot be attributed to the Headmaster. He has joined duty in the said school 51 days back. Hence, for some other reason i.e., to claim compensation, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The offence under Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act cannot be invoked against the petitioner herein and hence he submitted that the FIR filed against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence, he seeks quashing of the FIR as against the petitioner.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the first respondent police would submit that the mother of the defacto complainant has given a statement that the Headmaster has informed that her daughter is pregnant and therefore sent her back to the home. He further submitted that the petitioner has been charged under Section 21 of the POCSO Act and hence opposed the quashing of FIR at this stage.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the records carefully.
7. Normally the Court will not interfere with the FIR during investigation but at the same time when the FIR is motivated or calculated and result of false implication for some other reason or the entire allegation taken at the face value do not constitute any offence, the Court will certainly interfere with the FIR even during the investigation stage.
8. It could be seen from the records that the only allegation alleged against the petitioner is that being the Headmaster he has not informed to the concerned officials under Section 19 of the POCSO Act about the so called pregnancy of the deceased minor girl. It is relevant to note that the deceased was residing with her mother from 23.12.2021 till her death on 07.01.2022. Even the mother did not suspect her pregnancy. The first person who could identify the pregnancy of the daughter will be the mother. When the mother herself has not been able to identify the pr
The lack of knowledge about the pregnancy of a minor girl by the accused, especially when there is no suspicion from the family members, can justify quashing the FIR against the accused.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation under the POCSO Act to report offences to the police, ensuring the safety and security of the child and maintaining the confident....
The court upheld the validity of the FIR against the petitioner, emphasizing the obligation to report under the POCSO Act when aware of a minor's pregnancy.
The court ruled that an FIR can only be quashed if it does not disclose a prima facie case; allegations must be investigated unless manifestly false.
An FIR and subsequent charge sheet can be quashed when the evidence, including victim statements and complainant affidavits, demonstrates that the case was fabricated or foisted by investigating auth....
Limitation - Rejection of suit - Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on court to determine whether plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising averments in plaint, read in conjunction with documen....
The court ruled that a mother's delay in reporting her daughter's pregnancy, due to trauma, does not constitute a deliberate failure under the PoCSO Act, justifying quashment of proceedings against h....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
