2019 Supreme(Ori) 197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Srimati Sabitarani Sarkar - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3171 of 2018
Decided On : 24-06-2019
Advocate Appeared:
S.K. Mishra, Adv., Prem Kumar Patnaik, Adv.
Failure to report a case of sexual offence involving a minor, as required by the POCSO Act, constitutes an offence under section 21(2) of the Act.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Order - Code of Criminal Procedure, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - 176/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 21(2) of the POCSO Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a hostel superintendent, was accused of not reporting a case of rape and pregnancy of a victim under her care to the authorities. The court was tasked with considering whether the charges under sections 176/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 21(2) of the POCSO Act were justified.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the charges under section 176 of the Indian Penal Code but upheld the charges under section 21(2) of the POCSO Act, as it found that the petitioner failed to report the offence to the authorities as required by law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's actions constituted offences under the specified sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's actions did not satisfy the requirements of section 176 of the Indian Penal Code but did meet the criteria for an offence under section 21(2) of the POCSO Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application in part, quashing the charges under section 176 of the Indian Penal Code and upholding the charges under section 21(2) of the POCSO Act.
JUDGMENT :
S. K. SAHOO, J.
1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner Srimati Sabitarani Sarkar praying for quashing the impugned order dated 18.06.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri in G.R. Case No.88 of 2015 which arises out of Malkangiri P.S. Case No.33 of 2015 in taking cognizance of offences under sections 176/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 21(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter 'POCSO Act') and issuance of process against her. The said case is now subjudiced in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Malkangiri in C.T. Case No.107 of 2015.
2. The criminal law was set into motion on the presentation of the first information report by one Deba Kabasi before the Inspector in charge of Malkangiri police station wherein it is alleged that on 21.02.2015 the petitioner was the Hostel Superintendent of U.G. Govt. High School, Pedakunda, Malkangiri and she brought the victim to her house and left her in the custody of the informant who is the father of the victim and told him that the victim was pregnant. The victim was prosecuting her studies in that School and she was staying in the hostel and sometimes she use to come to the village. After the petitioner left the victim in the house, the informant asked the victim relating to her pregnancy and she disclosed that on the last Dussehra vacation when she had come to the house, covillager Bhima Madkami took her inside the jungle situated nearer to her village and committed rape on her for which she became pregnant. The informant called the relatives and gentlemen of the village for amicable settlement and the Superintendent in charge and others came to the house of the victim and they took the victim to the Govt. Hospital at Malkangiri and after preliminary treatment, the doctors opined that the victim was pregnant for six months and she is to be treated properly. The accused Bhima Madkami absconded from the village.
3. On the basis of the first information report, Malkangiri P.S. Case No.33 of 2015 was registered under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 4/5-J(ii)/8 of the POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offences under sections 376(1)/176/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 6/21(2) of the POCSO Act. So far as the petitioner is concerned, after receipt of charge sheet, the learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri vide under impugned dated 18.06.2015 took cognizance of offences under sections 176/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 21(2) of the POCSO Act and issued process.
4. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is absolutely no justification on the part of the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of offences under sections 176/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 21(2) of the POCSO Act and issue process against the petitioner. It is further contended that the materials on record indicate that on 20.02.2015 the victim communicated to the petitioner in the hostel about her pregnancy and on the very next day, the petitioner brought her back to her house and left there and intimated everything to the parents of the victim and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner intentionally omitted to furnish any information to any public servant and as such the ingredients of the offences are not attracted.
5. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that in view of section 21(2) of the POCSO Act, the petitioner being the in charge of the hostel after coming to know about the commission of offence should have reported the matter either to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or to the local police as envisaged under the said subsection. She only left the victim girl in her house but did not give information relating to commission of offences as envisaged under sectio