Back
Summoning Under POCSO and Section 354A Requires Substantiating Allegations in Record:
In a significant ruling concerning the threshold for , the has clarified that an accused cannot be summoned for serious offences under and the unless the evidence presented during the substantiates the allegations made in the initial complaint.
Hon’ble Justice Siddhartha Sah, presiding over a petition filed by Priyansh Atray and another, set aside a summoning order issued by the , insofar as it related to the and . While the court maintained the criminal proceedings regarding charges of assault and intimidation, it emphasized that in summoning must not be exercised in a "cursory manner."
The Dispute: A Property Conflict Turned Criminal The case stems from a complaint filed by the respondent, who alleged that on , the applicants accosted her while she was traveling to school, using abusive language and physical force. The complaint further alleged that the applicants outraged her modesty and threatened her.
However, the applicants contended that the case was a retaliatory measure born out of a residential dispute. They argued that the complainant’s family, who resided on the ground floor, had been harassing them (the tenants residing on the first floor) to extract money, citing earlier complaints filed with the .
The Missing Links in Evidence The primary legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court correctly applied its mind before issuing the summoning order. During the proceedings under , it became clear that while the complaint contained serious allegations of sexual harassment and touching of sensitive body parts, these specific accusations were conspicuously absent from the statements recorded under .
The respondent’s counsel fairly conceded that the witnesses, including the victim and the medical officer, had supported the claims of physical injury (the medical report confirmed four injuries), but had failed to recount the sexual harassment allegations during the that preceded the issuance of the summons.
Key Observations The Court underscored the gravity of summoning an accused, noting that it should not be treated as a routine administrative action. It held:
"Though there are certain allegations in the complaint regarding touching the private parts of the complainant, no such statement has been made by the complainant in her statements recorded under Sections 200 or in the statements of witnesses under "
The Court further clarified:
"On a perusal of the statements made by the complainant and the statements of the witnesses recorded under , it would clearly appear that none of the mentioned in are attracted, even if the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value."
Implications for Future Trials The High Court’s decision serves as a reminder to trial courts that the summoning stage is a critical barrier meant to protect individuals from unnecessary litigation. By quashing the charges under Section 354A and , the Court has reinforced the principle that the "" of an offence must be established by the evidence on record, rather than merely relying on the text of the complaint.
While the trial will continue regarding the remaining charges—Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation)—this ruling ensures that severe sexual offences are not invoked without sufficient evidentiary backing. The court has left the door open for the trial judge to decide the remaining matters on their own merits, ensuring that the integrity of the judicial process remains balanced against the rights of the accused.
