Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court, in its judgment dated 10 June 2025, rejected a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings in Special C.C. No.880/2018 registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. While acknowledging the procedural irregularities alleged by the petitioner—such as lack of medical examination, similarity in victim statements, and delay in recording evidence—the Court held that such contentions do not merit pre-trial interference. The Court stated, “Even one credible statement – if sufficient – can call for a trial” and directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months.
Facts
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Science, was accused of inappropriate conduct during a birthday party held on 30 September 2018 at his residence in Prestige Wellington Park, Bengaluru. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had touched his daughter and other girls aged 7–10 inappropriately during a game of “dark room.” A complaint was registered on 1 October 2018, leading to Crime No.127/2018 under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Trial commenced, with 13 witnesses examined, but the petitioner filed the quashing petition only in 2022, alleging statutory violations and procedural lapses.
Issues
- Whether the procedural violations under the POCSO Act and CrPC, including uniformity in victim statements and absence of medical examination, vitiated the proceedings.
- Whether the cognizance taken by the trial court suffered from non-application of mind.
- Whether these grounds justified exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the charge sheet and proceedings.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the case was falsely lodged due to personal grudge and that he had only intervened in a game where one child injured another. He asserted that the statements of the child witnesses recorded under Section 164 CrPC were verbatim copies and thus violated Section 25 of the POCSO Act. He also alleged breaches of Section 26 (non-use of audio-video recording), Section 27 (lack of medical examination), and Section 35 (delayed trial). Further, he argued that the cognizance order did not reflect application of mind and should be quashed.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the quashing petition, asserting that the allegations were serious, involving multiple victims. The Additional State Public Prosecutor emphasized that the trial had already begun, and procedural irregularities, if any, could be addressed during trial or appeal. He further argued that non-compliance with certain procedural aspects of the POCSO Act does not automatically render the proceedings void.
Analysis of the Law
The Court extensively examined Sections 25, 26(1) & (4), 27, and 35 of the POCSO Act. It held that although these provisions are mandatory in nature, non-compliance with some of them does not ipso facto invalidate the trial, especially when multiple children have made similar allegations. It also noted that Section 35 (regarding timeline for completion of trial) is directory, not mandatory.
Precedent Analysis
- Pramila Devi v. State of Jharkhand (2025 SCC OnLine SC 886): The Supreme Court held that detailed reasons are not mandatory while taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC based on a police report.
- Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 5 SCC 424: Reiterated that a Magistrate need not pass a reasoned order when issuing process.
- Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka (2021) 19 SCC 62: Distinguished between taking cognizance based on a complaint and a police report, holding that reasons are not necessary for cognizance based on the latter.
- Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (2019) 20 SCC 539: Held that the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons while taking cognizance on the basis of a charge sheet under Section 173 CrPC.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that the alleged procedural lapses—such as non-use of audio-video means, similar witness statements, and delayed trial—may be relevant for evaluation during trial but do not justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC. It held that the manner in which the statements were recorded, though similar, “would not take away the rigour of the allegation of every child alleging that the petitioner has touched their private parts.” It also clarified that medical evidence, though desirable, is not mandatory if credible ocular evidence exists.
Conclusion
The Court rejected the petition under Section 482 CrPC, refusing to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order, or trial proceedings. However, in light of the passage of time, it directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months from the date of receipt of the order and in strict accordance with law.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that procedural lapses in POCSO cases—such as delays or documentary irregularities—do not necessarily vitiate the trial. It underscores that the presence of even one credible witness statement can suffice for trial to proceed. The Court’s deference to trial proceedings over pre-trial interference marks a reaffirmation of judicial restraint under Section 482 CrPC.
Also Read : Karnataka High Court Restrains Hereditary Disruption at Sri Lakshmi Janardhana Temple