Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
George P.O. S/o. Ouseph – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER
The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him in S.C No.811/2020 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thrissur. The petitioner is the former chairman of the Child Welfare Committee, Thrissur. He functioned as such for a period from 2009 to 2019. He has been arrayed as accused No.2 (Crime No.1130/2019 of Ollur Police Station) in the Sessions Case.
2. The offences alleged are punishable under Section s 4 50 , 354(A), 376(2)(l), 376(2)(i) and 506 of the IPC and Section s 4 , 3(b), 6, 5(k), 12 read with Section 11 (iii) and Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2, alleging the offence under Section 21 read with Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act for non- reporting of the matter to the police.
3. The incident came to light after many years while the victim was sexually abused by an auto driver for which Crime No.1028/2019 was registered. In that crime, the provisions of the POCSO Act were not included as the victim had attained 19 years on the date of the second crime.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had not reported the incident to the police, when it w
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The single case law provided appears to be a standalone statement explaining the legislative procedure and judicial interpretation regarding the reporting and prosecution of sexual offences under the POCSO Act. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "disapproved" that suggest this case has been invalidated or negatively treated in subsequent rulings.
[Uncategorized/Neutral Treatment]
Case Law: Ismail M. VS State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 540
Explanation: The case law appears to be an authoritative interpretation or clarification regarding the procedural aspects of reporting cases under the POCSO Act. It discusses legislative procedures and judicial mandates but does not indicate any subsequent treatment that alters its authority or validity. Since there is no indication that this case has been overruled or criticized, it should be considered as a neutral or authoritative statement that remains relevant.
None. All the information provided is explicit enough to determine that the case law has not been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The absence of treatment indicators or subsequent references makes the treatment clear.
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
