Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court recently quashed the proceedings against a 53 year old teacher, the petitioner, accused of not complying with Section 19 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which mandates the reporting of offences.

A Single judge bench of Justice C. Jayachandran, ruled that criminal liability under the POCSO Act cannot be imposed on an individual solely because of their presence during the submission of a complaint about an alleged crime unless there is wilful omission on his part to report the offence.

The case pertains to allegations of sexual assault on a school student by the first accused, a teacher. The complaint was filed by the victim on November 17, 2022, a day after the alleged incident on November 16, 2022. The victim informed the school principal about the incident through a complaint forwarded via WhatsApp to the school counsellor. A meeting involving school staff, the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) President, and the Municipal Vice Chairperson was held on November 18, 2022, during which it was decided to report the matter to the police. The victim alleged that the school principal was reluctant to file the police complaint, however, an FIR was registered later that day by the counsellor.

The petitioner (fourth accused), who was present in the principal’s office when the victim forwarded the complaint, was accused, along with the principal and another teacher, under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act for failing to report the crime to the authorities immediately. The petitioner maintained that he had no role in handling or forwarding the complaint and was merely present when the victim disclosed the incident. It was emphasised that he had no direct involvement in the reporting process and sought quashing of the proceedings against him.

The prosecution, opposing the plea, argued that the petitioner, as a school authority, was legally obligated to report the crime without delay and that his failure to do so constituted a violation of the Act.

The court found that there was no evidence of deliberate inaction or wilful omission on the part of the petitioner. “The complaint was given by the student against the Principal. Criminal liability cannot be fastened on the petitioner for the mere reason that he was present at the Principal’s room, when the complaint was forwarded to the latter,” the court remarked.

The court further clarified that “there is a clear mandate to report the commission of the offence by the persons having knowledge of the same…However, the statute is silent as to the time frame within which this act must be performed, wherefore, the only logical conclusion possible is that the same should be done within a reasonable time.”

The court also pointed out that similar charges against the principal and another school authority had already been quashed, as the FIR was registered just one day after the victim’s complaint was lodged, noting that “No failure to attract the offence can be deduced from the above conduct.”

In light of these findings, the court ruled that no offence can be made out against the petitioner and all proceedings against him were quashed.

 

Cause Title: Joseph VJ v State of Kerala [CRL.MC NO. 9179 OF 2024]

Appearance: For the Petitioner- Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer,  Sarath K.P., Prerith Philip Joseph, Anilkumar C.R., K.S.Kiran Krishnan.; For the Respondent/ State- Public Prosecutor Maya M.N.