The main legal point established in the judgment is that abetment of an offence must precede the action, and the material collected during the investigation must prima facie constitute an offence under the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act.

Ravindra Maithani, J.

1. Present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code) has been filed by the petitioner to quash the summoning order dated 28.11.2018, passed by the Fast Track Court/Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 133/2018, State Vs. Suchit Narang and others, under Sections 376, 354 (A) and Section 3, 4, 9, 10, 16, 17 & 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”) as well as the charge sheet dated 08.11.2018 and entire proceedings arising out of it.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. In the instant case, an FIR was lodged on 18.08.2018, under Section 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, and under Section 354-A I.P.C. The FIR was lodged by the Chairman, Child Welfare Committee, Dehradun (for short “the CWC”). According to it, on 18.08.2018, the CWC visited the National Institute For The Empowerment Of Persons With Intellectual Disabilities at Dehradun (for short “the Institute”) and recorded statements of the inmates. It was brought to the notice that a Suchit Narang has been inappropriately touching the private parts of the minor girls and thereby exploiting them. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and others. Vide order dated 28.11.2018, learned court below summoned the co-accused Suchit Narang under Section 376, 354 (A) I.P.C. and Section 3, 4, 9 & 10 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner and three others have been summoned to answer the accusations under Section 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act. Aggrieved, the instant petition.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was posted as the Director in the Institute. The Institute carries out various activities, which include a model school for visually impaired children. On 16.08.2018, when the petitioner was away from Dehradun, the Principal informed her telephonically that there are some allegations against Suchit Narang. The petitioner immediately cut short her trip and returned Dehradun and on 17.08.2018, she put Suchit Narang under suspension. On the same day, constituted a committee to conduct an inquiry and also informed the CWC, which in turn lodged a report on 18.08.2018. The petitioner also informed the Police on 19.08.2018. Thereafter, it is argued that on 23.08.2018, the petitioner was transferred to Secunderabad from Dehradun. Not only this, learned Senior counsel would argue that earlier also in the month of April, 2018, there was a complaint of sexual harassment by one of the members of the faculty and on that complaint the petitioner had constituted a committee and reported the matter to Police; The petitioner has taken all necessary steps with promptitude. When she was reported about the commission of the offence; she neither concealed any thing nor ever made any mis-representation. The Institute on both the occasions constituted committees and took appropriate actions at an appropriate time and informed the police without any delay. The petitioner has not committed any offence under Section 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act, and whatever allegations have been leveled, they do not attract these provisions. It is argued that according to the charge sheet, based on the statement of a victim, recorded during investigation, the petitioner has been charge sheeted. But, whatever the victim has stated that reflects, as to what has happened after the incident. Therefore, it is argued that provisions of Section 16 of the POCSO Act, does not attract in the matter and it is a case, in which, interference under Section 482 of the Code, is warranted. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shyam Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi). In the case of Shyam Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Court