Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed by the accused for quashing of FIR registered under Section 354-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) (corresponding Section 75 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), Rakesh Kainthla, J., noted that many girls accused that they were touched inappropriately on their back, cheek and neck, and comments were passed on their dresses, and said that these acts constituted the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which provided punishment for physical contact with a minor with sexual intent. The Court also stated that the physical contact made by the accused with the girls coupled with the words uttered by him could only lead to one inference that the touch was with sexual intent.
The Court stated that the allegations made by the girls in their statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) (corresponding Section 180 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) duly established a prima facie commission of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Thus, the FIR could not be ordered to be quashed at this stage.
Background
In the present case, the Principal of Government Senior Secondary School received a complaint regarding the sexual harassment of a girl. The matter was referred to the Sexual Harassment Committee, which called the girl and her parents. However, they did not appear before the Committee and eventually the Committee was unable to do anything. Since, the matter involved the sexual harassment of a girl, therefore a request was made to the police to take action as per law.
The police conducted the investigation and went to the school. The statement of the victim was recorded and subsequently, the accused was arrested. The police recorded the statements of about 20 girls, who stated that the accused used to utter double-meaning words and touch the girls on their backs, cheeks etc. which made them uncomfortable. Hence, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 354-A of IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
The accused filed the present petition asserting that he was falsely implicated. The petitioner stated that the principal misunderstood the tenor of the complaint and referred the matter to the Chairperson of the Sexual Harassment Committee to take further action. The Sexual Harassment Committee also did not take any action in the matter and referred it back to the principal. The accused had been serving in the Department for 22 years and had won many awards from various institutions. No offence was made out against the accused even if the allegations in the FIR were taken to be true. Continuing with the criminal proceedings would amount to gross abuse of the judicial process. Therefore, the accused prayed that the present petition be allowed, and the FIR should be quashed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted the investigation conducted by the police and recorded statement of the victim and other girls, wherein they had stated that the petitioner caught her by neck, touch the back and cheek of girls, uttered double meaning words and also, asked them whether they knew how the children were born. The Court stated that the petitioner was a physics teacher and had no concern with the reproduction. Further, many girls had stated that he used to touch the girls inappropriately on their back, cheek and neck. Accused also used to comment about himself and the dress of the girls. These acts constituted the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which provided punishment for physical contact with a minor with sexual intent.
The Court stated that the physical contact made by the accused with the girls coupled with the words uttered by him could only lead to one inference that the touch was with sexual intent. Merely because the informant had not mentioned the ingredients of the commission of offence initially in the complaint made to the principal could not lead to an inference that no such facts had taken place. The Court stated that the girls have made statements showing that the accused used to touch them inappropriately and the result of the investigation could not be ignored at this stage.
The Court referred to Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC 734 and opined that this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction when the Trial Court was seized of the matter. The allegations made by the girls in their statements under Section 161 of CrPC duly established a prima facie commission of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and the FIR could not be ordered to be quashed at this stage.
[Rakesh Kumar Bansal v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 3238, decided on 09-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: P.P. Chauhan, Advocate (through VC) with Tara Devi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General; Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate.
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
