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 confidentiality of their right to privacy.

JUDGMENT :

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 64 dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure P.1) under Section 306 IPC and Sections 6, 18, 8, 21 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2022 (for short 'the POCSO Act') added later on, registered at Police Station PS BTPT, District Faridabad, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The petitioner is the Principal of Delhi Public School, Greater Faridabad, Sector-81, Faridabad. An unfortunate incident of a suicide committed by a young student of Class X-B, on account of the alleged harassment, bullying and torture by his classmates/students of the School, led to the registration of the aforesaid FIR. The petitioner being the overall incharge of the School and having been intimated about the said harassment/bullying/mental torture, did not act in the matter as per the mandate of the POCSO Act.

3. A hapless mother, whose world came shattering down with the untimely demise of her son, is the complainant. This Court has deep concerns for and all sympathies with the parents of the child and wish this unfortunate act had not happened.

4. Be that as it may. As the law took its own course, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue that there is no instigation on the part of the petitioner; that a bare reading of the contents of the FIR and the very role played by the petitioner in sorting out the issues, by engaging the parents of all the children (involved in the alleged incident), including the mother of the deceased child (complainant), would further support the version of the petitioner that no ingredients of Section 107 IPC are made out so as to attract the provisions of Section 306 IPC; that yet further when this role of the petitioner, was not disputed by the complainant-respondent No.2 at any stage, then the provisions of the POCSO Act are not attracted and that the petitioner has been dragged in the present proceedings only for the fact that she was/is the Principal of the School.

6. It is yet further argued that as out of 8 students (allegedly involved in the harassment/bullying/mental torture caused to the deceased child), four had already left the School, for one or the other reason, there was no occasion for the prosecution to invoke the provisions of the POCSO Act, especially Section 21 thereof.

7. While expressing his deep empathy with the parents of the deceased child, learned Senior Counsel would argue that the petitioner being a lady is also a mother and she had her concerns regarding the safety and security of the students (children), which is why she had called all the students, their parents and complainant-respondent No.2 and made her all out efforts to resolve the issue once for all. He further argues that this Court may take into consideration the bona-fide and swift approach of the petitioner in the incident in question and the petitioner would have been the last person, to have ever imagined this drastic act at the hands of the deceased child himself.

8. Mr. Ghai, further submits that the deceased-student (son of the complainant), vide e-mail, had treated the petitioner as his mother, which shows that there was no grudge in his mind against the petitioner, at all, at any stage. It is further submitted that at one stage, even the complainant was also satisfied with the action taken by the petitioner.

9. Yet further, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that on the day of occurrence, the child was alone from 6.00 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., when the unfortunate incident took place and the complainant was aware of the fact that her son was suffering from mental depression and panic attacks, but even then, she had left her son alone, for the reasons best known to her.

10. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that as per the provisions of the POCSO Act, it is the petit