Read Time: 07 minutes
The court observed that “Petitioner’s (Swati Maliwal) claim that she has protection under Section 100 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for her actions done in good faith… is required to be proved in accordance with law at the appropriate stage”.
The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed a petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP and former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) Chairperson Swati Maliwal seeking to quash an FIR registered against her in 2016. The FIR accused her of revealing the identity of a 14-year-old rape survivor.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “From the bare perusal of this Section, it is evident that if any Newspaper, Magazine, News-Sheet or Audio-Visual Media or other forms of communication disclose the name, address or school or any particulars which may lead to the identification of the child in conflict with law or child in need of care and protection, would be an offence punishable with the term that may extend to six months or fine which may extend to two lakhs in the present case…Therefore, there is no ground for quashing of FIR No. 356/2016 and the proceedings consequent thereto”.
The case originated from an FIR filed by a 14-year-old girl and her mother, alleging kidnapping, confinement, and sexual assault. However, on January 5, 2016, the girl recorded a statement under Section 164 CrPC contradicting her FIR, leading to the accused’s bail on January 12, 2016. Later, on January 25, 2016, she wrote to the Delhi Chief Minister, claiming coercion into giving a false statement, but no action was taken.
On May 15, 2016, a day before a court hearing, the girl went missing. Her mother reported threats from the accused, leading to a missing person report and an FIR on May 19, 2016. The police recovered the girl on May 26, 2016, but she refused medical examination and was placed in a Children’s Home. On May 27, 2016, she recorded another Section 164 CrPC statement denying allegations but later, in a dying declaration to DCW coordinators, claimed police coercion. Due to health issues, she was returned home on May 31, 2016.
Her father took her to LNJP Hospital, where the police refused a medical examination. On June 30, 2016, LNJP Hospital reported her history of sexual assault and symptoms of corrosive poisoning. A female officer took over, and the victim accused Shiv Shankar of kidnapping and rape. Additional charges under Section 376 IPC and POCSO were filed, but no fresh investigation into poisoning occurred.
On August 3, 2016, Maliwal sought an independent SIT probe and victim compensation. During the petition’s pendency, a charge sheet was filed against her for allegedly revealing the victim’s identity. Maliwal defended her actions claiming it to be in good faith, but the court found prima facie evidence under Sections 74 and 86 of the Juvenile Justice Act, requiring proof at a later stage.
“It is not under challenge that a Notice was issued to the SHO which got published on the WhatsApp Group of DCW by Sh. Bhupender Singh, Public Relations Officer, which later got it circulated to the News Channels wherein the name of the prosecutrix was disclosed. Prima facie, offence under Section 74 read with Section 86 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is clearly disclosed”, the court observed.
Therefore, the court held that the FIR against Maliwal could not be quashed and dismissed her petition.
For Petitioner: Advocates Arun Khatri, Anushka Bhalla, Shelly Dixit and Tracy SebistianFor Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev BhandariCase Title: Delhi Commission For Women v State (2025:DHC:1052)
Please Login or Register
