The court affirmed that direct complaints under the POCSO Act are permissible and acknowledged that the alleged acts met the definitions of sexual harassment and assault.

O R D E R

The prayers in the aforecaptioned Criminal Revision Petitioner Case filed under Secs. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , are as follows:

“i. Set aside the order in C.M.P.No.1198/2018 dated 10/01/2019 on the files of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam, (sic) allow the same;

ii. Grant such other relief deemed fit and proper by this Honourable Court.”

2. Heard Sri.Vinay Ramdas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (complainant), Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 State, Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for R-2 and Sri.M.R.Sudheendran, learned counsel appearing for R-3. Though notice process on R-4 has been duly completed, there is no appearance for that party.

3. The gist of the allegations in Anx. A-1 complaint is as follows:

The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are husband and wife and a minor female child aged 31/ is born out of the wedlock. The 3rd respondent is an old friend and batch mate of the 2nd respondent, who is also married. The 4th respondent is the mother of the 2nd respondent. 2nd and 3rd respondents are in an illicit relationship and the trails of the same can be seen in Facebook, etc. The Revision Petitioner had left his job when he learnt about the illicit relationship and came back to his native place. The 2nd respondent had shifted her residence to the above shown address, as the same is convenient for her illicit relationship. The 2nd respondent is working in Neethi Medicals in Kulanada and the child is now enrolled in L.P. School, Kulanada. The school is 40 k.m. away from her house. Respondents 2 and 3 used to take the minor child after school hours in a Wagon-R car used by the 3rd respondent and travelled to scheduled places at odd times. Respondents 2 and 3 used to perform sexual acts in front of the minor child. It is alleged that the 3rd respondent used to hug and kiss the minor child in the case. The petitioner had seen the child at her school and the petitioner had asked about the behaviour of the 3rd respondent and the same was recorded and produced before the court below in a compact disc, etc.

4. According to the petitioner, he had made a complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) before the Station House Officer (SHO), Pathanapuram Police Station, and that at the instance of one of the Police officials, he was forced to sign in the register stating that the complaint is not proceeded with. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to make a complaint before the Superintendent of Police (District Police Chief). But no effective action was forthcoming from the competent Police authorities concerned. That thereupon the petitioner was concertinaed to file Anx.A-1 private criminal complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Punalur, which was then directed to be re- presented before the proper court as the jurisdiction is vested with the notified sessions court. Accordingly, the petitioner had then re- presented the said Anx.A-1 complaint before the Addl. Sessions Court-I, Kollam, which is notified as the Special Court to deal with offences under the POCSO Act and the complaint has been numbered Crl. Miscellaneous Petition No.1198/2018 as can be seen from Anx. A-1.

5. It is further stated that the Special Court has then proceeded to record the statements of 6 witnesses and the matter was heard and by the impugned A-2 order dated 10.1.2019, it was held that the offence alleged as per Sec.11(i) of the POCSO Act is not disclosed in the factual allegations in the complaint and that even if the averments in the complaint are assumed to be true, still the provisions under the POCSO Act are not applicable to the facts of the case and that there is not even an allegation that the respondents have done the acts complained of with sexual intent against the child and that even if it is taken that R-1 and R-2 had sexual activities