Judicial emphasis on immediate cognizance in cases involving minors under the POCSO Act to ensure proper legal proceedings.

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.)

This petition has been filed by the father of the minor child complaining that his daughter had been missing on and from 10.08.2025. The child was born on 19.01.2009. In this connection, he had lodged a complaint before the third respondent, Inspector of Police, S.V.Mangalam Police Station, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District and FIR in Cr.No.125 of 2025 has been registered by the S.V.Mangalam Police Station under the caption for 'girl missing'.

2. It is to be noted that this is not the first instance when the young child had been missing. An earlier occasion, she was found missing and with respect to that, FIR in Cr.No.92 of 2024 had been registered on 21.09.2024 under the caption 'girl missing' by the Inspector of Police, Ulagampatti Police Station. After the investigation, in that particular FIR, the Investigating Officer had filed a final report on 16.12.2024. It was represented before us by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the same had not been taken cognizance by the Presiding Officer, the Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Sivagangai. We had therefore, called for an explanation from said Sessions Judge. 3. We have received the explanation dated 03.10.2025. In this explanation, the learned Sessions Judge had given the following reasons as to why he was not in a position to take cognizance of the final report filed through e-filing on 16.12.2024.

"(a) Scanned the documents not in proper format, i.e., OCR or in PDF / A format as per the 2020 Madras High Court e-filing rules.

(b) The accused's photo and statement were not uploaded in the e-filing portal.

(c) Accused copies under sec.223 of BNSS and victim copies under section 25(2) of the 2012 POCSO Act with attestation by the investigating officer not furnished.

(d) The list of documents, memo of evidence, under section 183 of the BNSS statement of LW 1 and LW3 to LW 7 are not enclosed with the final report and also not uploaded in the e-filing portal.

(e) The original birth certificate or a true copy of the birth certificate of the victim was not produced.

(f) Neither the third accused was arrested nor examined by the investigating officer.

(g) The final report noted two occurrence; however, only one observation mahazar, along with the sketch, was enclosed and uploaded in the e-filing portal.

(h) The property was not seized and produced before this court."

4. We are constrained to note that every effort should have been taken the Sessions Judge to take the cognizance of the charge sheet as the accused is again involved in luring the minor child away from her natural place of residence and from her natural guardian.

5. The minor child has been rescued from Andra Pradesh.

6. In the earlier FIR wherein charge sheet has been filed, the learned Sessions Judge had called for the original or true copy of the birth certificate. But we enquired with the minor. She had completed her school /10th standard and is now undergoing nursing course. In the school certificate, her birth date would have been given and that could be used as the document for taking cognizance of the charge sheet.

7. Be that as it may, we direct the Sessions Judge (FAC), Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act , 2012, Sivagangai to take cognizance of the charge sheet filed after suitable rectifications and made by the Investigating Officer and proceed further with trial in that particular case.

8. We are also constrained to note that the same accused had been involved in screening away the minor child not on one occasion but an two occasions.

9. Today, the minor child had been produced before u