Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48814
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
.......... .......... .......... – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 667 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR, SRI.G.P.SHINOD, SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN, SHRI.ATUL MATHEWS, SMT.GAYATHRI S.B.
For the Respondents: SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The POCSO Act mandates stringent confidentiality regarding child victims' identities, prohibiting disclosure in any form, not limited to media.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 23, 24, and 33 - Issues surrounding the disclosure of the identity of a child victim were raised in a complaint returned by the POCSO Court for being non-maintainable - The Act mandates confidentiality in victim disclosures, barring exceptions permitted by Special Courts. The court concludes that the provisions encompass all forms of communication beyond media. (Paras 6-10, 12, 16)
(B) Legal Interpretation - The legislative intent regarding the identity of POCSO victims must reflect the Act's protective nature to encompass all sources of disclosure. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the dismissal of a complaint regarding the disclosure of his child's identity as a POCSO victim, citing its return as non-maintainable under POCSO provisions. Legal issues arose from the allegedly self-incriminating nature of the complaint by the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The document presented did not meet the criteria for a formal complaint, leading to its return; clarity and proper drafting as per legal requirements were emphasized.
Issues: The core issues involved the interpretation of POCSO provisions pertaining to victim identity disclosure and the definition of complaint under criminal legal standards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the POCSO Act's provisions prohibit any identity disclosure by all means, underlining the need for sensitive handling of victim information. (Paras 9-12)
Result: The petition is dismissed, with allowance for a properly drafted complaint to be submitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the maintainability of a complaint under pocso. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. legal provisions on victim identity confidentiality. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. broader application of identity confidentiality under the act. (Para 9 , 12) |
| 4. complaint inadequacies and return decision. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. dismissal of the petition; options for resubmission. (Para 16) |
J U D G M E N T
An endorsement in the form of an order of the District Court, Kollam in the docket of Ext.P37 which the petitioner claims to be a complaint, is under challenge in this petition filed by the so called complainant/petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The aforesaid endorsement reads as follows:
“Complaint not maintainable before POCSO Court. Hence returned to be filed before proper Court.”
3. As per the averments in this petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that a complaint, which he filed before the District and Sessions Court, Kollam, against the act of certain persons disclosing the identity of his child, a victim of POCSO Act crime, has been returned by the said Court, stating the reason that it is not maintainable before POCSO Court. Ironically, it appears from the contentions in this petition that the offender in the said POCSO Act crime is none other than the petitioner himself. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid details revealing the identity of the POCSO Act crime victim were disclosed by the Public Information Officer of Kadakkal Police Station in reply to an R.T.I Act query from the second defendant in O.S No.334/2021 of Munsiff’s Court, Kottarakkara, a suit which the petitioner had instituted in connection with the disputes relating to a Trust managing the affairs of a U.P School. It is contended that the defendants in the aforesaid suit further made the details of the child public by producing that reply along with the written statement in the said suit. For the above reason, the petitioner sought the initiation of criminal prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against those persons who revealed the identity of the POCSO Act crime victim.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. What exactly is the offence under the Act when the allegation is about disclosing the identity of the victim of a POCSO Act crime? This is the legal issue involved in this case.
6. Section 24 of the Act deals with the modalities to be followed while a police officer records the statement of a child. Sub Section (5) of of the Act reads as follows:
“24. Recording of Statement of a Child.
(1) xxx (2) xx x (3) xxx (4) xxx (5) The Police Officer shall ensure that the identity of the child is protected from the public media, unless otherwise directed by the Special Court in the interest of the child.”
7. Section 33 of the Act deals with the procedure and powers of the Special Court dealing with the trial of POCSO Act crime. Sub Section (7) of of the Act reads as follows:
“33. Procedure and Powers of Special Court (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) xxx (5) xxx (6) xxx (7) The Special Court shall ensure that the identity of the child is not disclosed at any time during the course of an investigation or trial.”
8. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that the legislature in its wisdom has incorporated the aforesaid restrictions keeping in view of the absolute necessity to keep the identity and details of the victim of POCSO Act crime strictly confidential.
9. The penal provision relating to the disclosure of identity of a child is contained in Section 23 of the Act. The aforesaid provision reads as follows: “23. Procedure for Media.
(1) No person shall make any report or present comments on any child from any form of media or studio or photographic facilities without having complete and authentic information, which may have the effect of lowering his reputation or infringing upon his
