POCSO Act: Alleged Procedural Lapses & Unreasoned Cognizance Not Grounds to Quash S.7/8 Proceedings Under S.482 CrPC, Trial Must Continue: Karnataka HC - 2025-06-10

Court Cases & Legal News.

Karnataka HC Declines to Quash POCSO Case Against Professor, Emphasizes Trial for Disputed Facts

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a petition filed by an Assistant Professor seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that alleged procedural irregularities under the POCSO Act and an unreasoned order of taking cognizance by the trial court are not sufficient grounds to halt the trial, especially when serious allegations involving multiple child victims are at play. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months.

Case Background: Birthday Party Turns Grim

The case revolves around an incident on September 30, 2018, during a birthday party for the petitioner's, Sri Avik Bid 's, daughter at their apartment in Prestige Wellington Park, Jalahalli. Several children from neighboring apartments were invited. During the party, some children were playing a "dark room" game. The petitioner claimed he entered the room to manage a commotion after one child allegedly poked another in the eye.

However, later that evening, the father of one of the attending children (the de-facto complainant), along with others, confronted the petitioner, accusing him of inappropriately touching girl children during the party. A formal complaint was registered the next day, October 1, 2018, leading to Crime No.127 of 2018 under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The Jalahalli Police investigated and filed a charge sheet on November 10, 2018. The Special Court took cognizance on December 17, 2018. By the time the petitioner approached the High Court in March 2022, 13 witnesses had already been examined in the ongoing trial.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Contentions (led by Senior Advocate Sri C.V. Nagesh):

* The allegations were false and fabricated due to an "axe to grind" by the complainant. * Numerous procedural violations under the POCSO Act occurred:

* Section 25: Statements of child victims recorded under Section 164 CrPC were verbatim and not "as spoken by the child."

* Section 26(1) & (4): Statements were not recorded as spoken, and no audio-video electronic recording was made.

* Section 27: No medical examination of the alleged child victims was conducted.

* Section 35: Evidence of children was not recorded within 30 days of cognizance, and the trial was not concluded within one year. * The order taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC was passed without application of mind, without examining crucial documents, and no separate order issuing summons was passed.

State's Contentions (led by Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha ): * All contentions raised by the petitioner are matters for trial. * Allegations were serious, with about eight children claiming the petitioner touched them inappropriately, misusing the darkness. * The petition under Section 482 CrPC should not be entertained; the petitioner must face a full trial. * Any statutory violations or issues with the cognizance order would not vitiate the entire proceedings and could be argued in an appeal if necessary.

High Court's Analysis and Rationale

Justice M. Nagaprasanna meticulously examined each of the petitioner's contentions:

1. Violation of Section 25 (Recording of Statements): The Court acknowledged the "startlingly uniform" nature of the children's statements but held: > "Non recording of statements ‘as spoken’ will not ipso facto invalidate the proceedings, leading to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. One statement is enough for the petitioner to be directed to face trial."

2. Violation of Section 26 (Audio-Video Recording): While deeming audio-video recording "undoubtedly desirable," the Court found its omission insufficient to "derail the proceedings at this stage," adding that the petitioner could raise this issue during the trial.

3. Violation of Section 27 (Medical Examination): The Court stated that the absence of medical examination was not fatal, as: > "Law is settled that medical evidence though desirable, is not sine qua non, where other credible ocular evidence exits."

4. Violation of Section 35 (Time-bound Trial): The Court reiterated the established legal position that the timelines in Section 35 are "directory and not mandatory," and delays due to various factors cannot be a ground for quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

5. Order of Taking Cognizance: This was a major plank of the petitioner's argument. The Court, however, relied extensively on Supreme Court precedents, including PRAMILA DEVI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND, [2025 SCC OnLine SC 886] and the three-Judge Bench decision in PRADEEP S.WODEYAR V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, [(2021) 19 SCC 62] . The Court emphasized the distinction between cognizance taken on a police report (Section 190(1)(b) CrPC) versus a private complaint. Quoting Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta , the Court noted: > "In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process... Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused." The Court concluded, "Thus, tumbles down the submission of the learned senior counsel qua cognizance."

Seriousness of Allegations and Need for Trial: The judgment underscored that the allegations—that the petitioner touched the private parts of children in a dark room—squarely fall within the ambit of Sections 7 (sexual assault) and 8 (punishment for sexual assault) of the POCSO Act. > "The contentions so advanced by the petitioner are all in the realm of seriously disputed questions of fact, for which a full-blown trial is imperative... The manner of recording of evidence by the learned Magistrate would not take away the rigour of the allegation of every child alleging that the petitioner has touched their private parts."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court found no merit in the petition and rejected it, thereby refusing to quash the proceedings against Sri Avik Bid . Any interim orders were dissolved. Critically, the Court directed the concerned trial court to conclude the trial within three months from the date of receipt of the order, given the considerable time already lapsed.

This judgment reinforces the principle that the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases involving grave accusations under special enactments like the POCSO Act. It also clarifies that while procedural compliance is important, alleged lapses may not automatically vitiate proceedings, especially when the core allegations warrant a full trial for truth determination. The decision further solidifies the legal understanding regarding the sufficiency of unreasoned cognizance orders when based on police reports.