MR.SHIVAPRASAD BHAT vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9422 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. MR.SHIVAPRASAD BHAT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O. SHRIDHARA BHAT,
RESIDING AT. NO. 2-55,
MEENAKSHI NIVASA,
KANTAVARA VILLAGE AND POST
UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 129.
MOB: 89701 74754
2. MR. JAYASHEELA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O. SANJEEVA BHANDARY
RESIDING AT NO.3-75,
BHANDARY HITTHILU HOUSE
AMTADY
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 211.
3. MR. RAJESH LOBO
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O ALPHONSE LOBO
RESIDING AT NO.15-127
SHANTHIBETTU
KARINJE VILLAGE, TACCODE POST,
KODANGALLU S.O
MANGALURU TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 197.
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
MOB: 9880004164
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JITHIN JEIJO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MOODABIDRE POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. DR. GOPALAKRISHNA SHANABOG
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.403,
RD
3 FLOOR, SIMS CAMPUS,
SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I A/W
SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN
CR.NO.94/2026 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 4, 8 AND 21 OF
POCSO ACT 2012, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, FTSC-II, MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners/accused 2, 3 and 4 stand before the Court
calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.94 of
2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 4, 8
and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short).
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts, in brief, germane
are as follows: -
nd
2.1. The 2 respondent is the complainant. Petitioner
No.1/accused No.2 is the Head Master, Excellent English
nd
Medium School, Moodabidre (‘the School’ for short). The 2
petitioner/ accused No.3 is the Assistant Head Master and
warden of the school. Petitioner No.3/accused No.4 is the Child
Welfare Officer of the school. An incident of sexual assault
nd
unfolds on 2 June 2026 at about 1 a.m. The son of the
th
complainant studying in 10 standard at the school stays in the
hostel. The accused No.1 who is the roommate and classmate
of the son of the complainant is said to have thrust his erect
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
penis into the complainant’s son’s mouth and when the
complainant’s son immediately tried to wake up his other
roommate, he did not come to any help. The further allegation
is that the son of the complainant immediately reported and
complained to the resident warden about the incident.
However, despite immediate complaint or reporting, the
petitioners/accused did not take the matter seriously nor
recorded the statement of the witnesses properly.
2.2. The next morning, the incident of sexual assault was
reported and complained to the resident wardens. Again, no
action was taken. The accusation was that the victim boy, the
son of the complainant was participating in a consensual act.
The boy had communicated the incident through a letter. The
Child Welfare Officer/accused No.4 is said to have destroyed
the original letter written by the victim and made him write
another letter on his instructions, that no sexual offence had
taken place and a false complaint was given as a result of fight
between the two boys. The boy was threatened that action
would be taken under the POCSO Act. Therefore, the institution
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
did not bring it to the notice of the victim boy’s parents. On
03-06-2026 the accused confesses to the incident.
2.3. On 08-06-2026, 5 or 6 days later, two boys handed
over their mobile phones to the school authorities. On
10-06-2026, it appears that disciplinary action against the
victim boy was taken on being caught with the phone in the
hostel. It is then the victim boy narrates the entire incident to
his father. Then comes the complaint on 14-06-2026, alleging
the offences under Sections 4, 8 and 21 of the POCSO Act
before the Women’s Police Station, Shimoga. A zero FIR is
st
transferred to the jurisdictional Police i.e., the 1 respondent
and then comes the crime in Crime No.94 of 2026 drawing
four accused persons into the web of proceedings, namely, the
student who committed the offence as accused No.1 and the
petitioners as accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively. Even before
the ink on the crime could dry, the petitioners are before this
Court calling in question the registration of the crime and seek
its complete obliteration.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. Heard Sri Jithin Jeijo, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public
Prosecutor-1 appearing for the respondent No.1.
SUBMISSIONS :
PETITIONERS:
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would vehemently contend that Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO
Act are against the principal accused, accused No.1 and not
against these petitioners. Against these petitioners what is
alleged is only Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which is failure to
report of the incident. Section 21 of the POCSO Act is a
bailable offence and mechanically roping in, institutional heads
under a bailable offence, warrants interference at the hands of
this Court. The learned counsel submits that the essential
ingredient of Section 21 of the POCSO Act is the intentional
omission, despite having the knowledge of the offence, to
report the offence. The alleged incident has taken place at
mid-night in the hostel between private individuals. The
petitioners had no knowledge. Therefore, mens rea or the
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
allegation that they are trying to shield the main perpetrator
cannot be attributed to the petitioners. He would further
contend that the allegations are vague, improper and do not
attract any of the provisions. Therefore, he would seek
quashment of the crime itself against these petitioners.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:
5. Per contra, the learned State Public Prosecutor-I
Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would vehemently refute the submissions
and contend that if it was only the allegation of non-reporting,
all these submissions would have merited acceptance. Though
non-reporting is also one of the allegations, they have
threatened the victim boy to change the narration given by him
on phone and developed a story of usage of the phone in the
hostel and made the victim boy to change the narration.
Therefore, the petitioners have harboured the offender as well,
apart from not reporting the incident and exposed themselves
to the offence under Section 21 of the POCSO Act.
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material on record. The only issue that falls for
consideration is:
“Whether the crime so registered must be
obliterated against the petitioners?”
CONSIDERATION:
7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of
events are all a matter of record. The offences alleged are
under Sections 4, 8 and 21 of the POCSO Act. Section 4 deals
with penetrative sexual assault. Section 8 deals with
punishment for sexual assault, both of which cannot be
attributed to the petitioners. Therefore, what could be
attributed to the petitioners is undoubtedly the offence under
Section 21 of the POCSO Act. Section 21 of the POCSO Act
reads as follows:
“ 21. Punishment for failure to report or record
a case.—(1) Any person, who fails to report the
commission of an offence under sub-section (1) of
Section 19 or Section 20 or who fails to record such
offence under sub-section (2) of Section 19 shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
which may extend to six months or with fine or with
both.
(2) Any person, being in-charge of any
company or an institution (by whatever name
called) who fails to report the commission of an
offence under sub-section (1) of Section 19 in
respect of a subordinate under his control , shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to one year and with fine.
(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not
apply to a child under this Act.”
Section 21 punishes those who would not report the offence as
necessary under Section 19 of the POCSO Act. Section 19 thus
reads as follows: -
“ 19. Reporting of offences .—(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), any person
(including the child), who has apprehension that an
offence under this Act is likely to be committed or
has knowledge that such an offence has been
committed, he shall provide such information to ,—
( a ) the Special Juvenile Police Unit; or
( b ) the local police.
(2) Every report given under sub-section (1) shall
be—
( a ) ascribed an entry number and recorded in
writing;
( b ) be read over to the informant;
( c ) shall be entered in a book to be kept by the
Police Unit.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
(3) Where the report under sub-section (1) is
given by a child, the same shall be recorded under
sub-section (2) in a simple language so that the
child understands contents being recorded.
(4) In case contents are being recorded in the
language not understood by the child or wherever it
is deemed necessary, a translator or an interpreter,
having such qualifications, experience and on
payment of such fees as may be prescribed, shall be
provided to the child if he fails to understand the same.
(5) Where the Special Juvenile Police Unit or local
police is satisfied that the child against whom an offence
has been committed is in need of care and protection,
then, it shall, after recording the reasons in writing, make
immediate arrangement to give him such care and
protection (including admitting the child into shelter home
or to the nearest hospital) within twenty-four hours of the
report, as may be prescribed.
(6) The Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police
shall, without unnecessary delay but within a period of
twenty-four hours, report the matter to the Child Welfare
Committee and the Special Court or where no Special
Court has been designated, to the Court of Session,
including need of the child for care and protection and
steps taken in this regard.
(7) No person shall incur any liability, whether civil
or criminal, for giving the information in good faith for the
purpose of sub-section (1).”
The statutory scheme of the POCSO Act leaves little room
for equivocation. It is built upon the foundational
premise that every allegation of sexual abuse against a
child must be treated with utmost seriousness, promptly
reported, and immediately set into motion before the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
statutory authorities. The legislative intent is not merely
punitive towards the principal offender, but equally
preventive against institutional silence. The duty to
report is, therefore, not a matter of discretion but a
statutory command.
8. Section 19 of the POCSO Act casts an unequivocal
obligation upon every person who has knowledge or even an
apprehension that an offence under the POCSO Act has been
committed, to forthwith communicate such information to the
Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. The provision is
couched in mandatory language. The Legislature has
consciously employed the expression "shall" leaving no
latitude to any individual or institution to undertake a
parallel inquiry, weigh the credibility of the victim,
broker a settlement, or conclude that the allegation is
false. The statute recognises that the determination of
truth is the exclusive province of the investigating
agency and, ultimately, the Special Court, and not of the
management of an educational institution.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
9. Section 21 of the POCSO Act gives teeth to this
legislative command. It criminalises the omission to report an
offence as mandated under Section 19 of the POCSO Act and,
in sub-section (2), imposes a higher degree of responsibility
upon every person who is in charge of an institution.
Educational institutions, particularly residential schools and
hostels entrusted with the care of children, stand in loco
parentis . They owe not merely a moral duty but a heightened
statutory obligation to ensure that every allegation of child
sexual abuse is immediately brought to the notice of the law-
enforcement machinery. Institutional reputation, internal
disciplinary mechanisms, or subjective satisfaction regarding
the veracity of the complaint can never eclipse the statutory
mandate.
THE JURISPRUDENCE:
10. The interpretation of Sections 19 and 21 of the
POCSO Act need not detain this Court for long and delve deep
into the matter.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
10.1. The Apex Court in JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN
1
ALLIANCE v. S.HARISH , holds as follows:
“…. …. …..
251. Thus, it is evident that, to achieve the
avowed purpose, a legal obligation has been imposed
under the POCSO Act on any person to report an
offence to the relevant authorities specified therein
if they have knowledge that an offence under the
Act has been committed. This obligation also
extends to individuals who have reason to believe
that an offence under the Act is likely to be
committed. In addition to imposing this legal duty
under Section 19, the legislature being in seisin of
the paramount importance in collectively
addressing the problems of child abuse and
exploitation, deemed it expedient to make the
failure to discharge this obligation punishable
under Section 21 of the Act. Such provisions have
been inserted with a view to ensure strict
compliance of the provisions under the POCSO and
thereby to ensure that the tender age of children is
not being abused and their childhood and youth is
protected against exploitation.
252. In Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of
Maharashtra , (2013) 5 SCC 546, this Court
expressing its anguish over the large number of
cases of abuse and exploitation of children, held
that such issues must be collectively dealt by all
stakeholders in a child-centric manner by applying
the best interest of child standard , since best
interest of the child is paramount and not the
interest of perpetrator of the crime. It further inter-
alia laid down the manner in which all persons in
charge of the schools/educational institutions,
special homes, children homes, shelter homes,
hostels, remand homes, jails, etc. or wherever
children are housed have to comply with the
obligation(s) envisaged under Section(s) 19 & 21 of
the POCSO. The relevant observations read as under:—
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2611
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
“72. I may also point out that, in large
numbers of cases, children are abused by persons
known to them or who have influence over them.
Criminal courts in this country are galore with
cases where children are abused by adults
addicted to alcohol, drugs, depression, marital
discord, etc. Preventive aspects have seldom
been given importance or taken care of. Penal
laws focus more on situations after commission of
offences like violence, abuse, exploitation of the
children. Witnesses of many such heinous crimes
often keep mum taking shelter on factors like
social stigma, community pressure, and
difficulties of navigating the criminal justice
system, total dependency on the perpetrator
emotionally and economically and so on. Some
adult members of family including parents choose
not to report such crimes to the police on the
plea that it was for the sake of protecting the
child from social stigma and it would also do
more harm to the victim. Further, they also take
shelter pointing out that in such situations some
of the close family members having known such
incidents would not extend medical help to the
child to keep the same confidential and so on,
least bothered about the emotional, psychological
and physical harm done to the child. Sexual
abuse can be in any form like sexually molesting
or assaulting a child or allowing a child to be
sexually molested or assaulted or encouraging,
inducing or forcing the child to be used for the
sexual gratification of another person, using a
child or deliberately exposing a child to sexual
activities or pornography or procuring or allowing
a child to be procured for commercial exploitation
and so on.
73. In my view, whenever we deal with an
issue of child abuse, we must apply the best
interest of child standard, since best interest of
the child is paramount and not the interest of
perpetrator of the crime. Our approach must be
child-centric. Complaints received from any
quarter, of course, have to be kept confidential
without casting any stigma on the child and the
family members. But, if the tormentor is the
family member himself, he shall not go scot-free.
Proper and sufficient safeguards also have to be
given to the persons who come forward to report
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
such incidents to the police or to the Juvenile
Justice Board.
74. The conduct of the police for not
registering a case under Section 377 IPC against
the accused, the agony undergone by a child of
11 years with moderate intellectual disability,
non-reporting of offence of rape committed on
her, after having witnessed the incident either to
the local police or to the Juvenile Justice Board
compel us to give certain directions for
compliance in future which, in my view, are
necessary to protect our children from such
sexual abuses. This Court as parens patriae has a
duty to do so because the Court has guardianship
over minor children, especially with regard to the
children having intellectual disability, since they
are suffering from legal disability. Prompt
reporting of the crime in this case could have
perhaps, saved the life of a minor child of
moderate intellectual disability.
Xxx xxx xxx
76. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, I am inclined to
convert death sentence awarded to the accused
to rigorous imprisonment for life and that all the
sentences awarded will run consecutively.
77. In my opinion, the case in hand calls
for issuing the following directions to various
stakeholders for due compliance:
77.1. The persons in charge of the
schools/educational institutions, special
homes, children homes, shelter homes,
hostels, remand homes, jails, etc. or
wherever children are housed, if they come
across instances of sexual abuse or assault
on a minor child which they believe to have
been committed or come to know that they
are being sexually molested or assaulted are
directed to report those facts keeping
upmost secrecy to the nearest Special
Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or local police,
and they, depending upon the gravity of the
complaint and its genuineness, take
appropriate follow-up action casting no
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
stigma to the child or to the family
members.
77.2. Media personnel, persons in charge
of hotels, lodges, hospitals, clubs, studios and
photograph facilities have to duly comply with the
provision of Section 20 of Act 32 of 2012 and
provide information to the SJPU, or local police.
Media has to strictly comply with Section 23 of
the Act as well.
77.3. Children with intellectual disability
are more vulnerable to physical, sexual and
emotional abuse. Institutions which house them
or persons in care and protection, if come across
any act of sexual abuse, have a duty to bring to
the notice of the Juvenile Justice Board/SJPU or
local police and they in turn be in touch with the
competent authority and take appropriate action.
77.4. Further, it is made clear that if the
perpetrator of the crime is a family member
himself, then utmost care be taken and further
action be taken in consultation with the mother or
other female members of the family of the child,
bearing in mind the fact that best interest of the
child is of paramount consideration.
77.5. If hospitals, whether government or
privately-owned or medical institutions where
children are being treated come to know that
children admitted are subjected to sexual abuse,
the same will immediately be reported to the
nearest Juvenile Justice Board/SJPU and the
Juvenile Justice Board, in consultation with SJPU,
should take appropriate steps in accordance with
the law safeguarding the interest of the child.
77.6. The non-reporting of the crime by
anybody, after having come to know that a minor
child below the age of 18 years was subjected to
any sexual assault, is a serious crime and by not
reporting they are screening the offenders from
legal punishment and hence be held liable under
the ordinary criminal law and prompt action be
taken against them, in accordance with law.
77.7. Complaints, if any, received by
Ncpcr, Scpcr, Child Welfare Committee (CWC)
and Child Helpline, NGOs or women's
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
organisations, etc., they may take further follow-
up action in consultation with the nearest
Juvenile Justice Board, SJPU or local police in
accordance with law.
77.8. The Central Government and the
State Governments are directed to constitute
SJPUs in all the districts, if not already
constituted and they have to take prompt and
effective action in consultation with the Juvenile
Justice Board to take care of the child and protect
the child and also take appropriate steps against
the perpetrator of the crime.
77.9. The Central Government and every
State Government should take all measures as
provided under Section 43 of Act 32 of 2012 to
give wide publicity to the provisions of the Act
through media including television, radio and
print media, at regular intervals, to make the
general public, children as well as their parents
and guardians, aware of the provisions of the
Act.”
253. This Court in its decision in State of
Maharashtra v. Maroti , (2023) 4 SCC 298 examined
and explained the true purport of the obligations
envisaged under Section(s) 19 & 21 of the POCSO.
It held that prompt and proper reporting of
offences under the POCSO is the bedrock of the
obligations that have been cast under the said
provisions, and any other view would defeat the
very purpose and object of the Act. It further
observed that merely because the failure to
discharge the obligation under Section(s) 19 & 21 is
punishable with imprisonment for a short duration,
does not mean that such an offence is not to be
taken seriously. Accordingly, it held that strict
compliance of such provisions must be ensured to
protect the tender age and youth of children against
exploitation. The relevant observations read as under:—
“11. To achieve the avowed purpose, a
legal obligation for reporting of offence
under the POCSO Act is cast upon on a
person to inform the relevant authorities
specified thereunder when he/she has
knowledge that an offence under the Act
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
had been committed. Such obligation is also
bestowed on person who has apprehension
that an offence under this Act is likely to be
committed. Besides casting such a legal
obligation under Section 19, the Legislature
thought it expedient to make failure to
discharge the obligation thereunder as
punishable, under Section 21 thereof. True
that under Section 21 (1), failure to report
the commission of an offence under Sub
Section 1 of Section 19 or Section 20 or
failure to report such offence under Sub
Section 2 of Section 19 has been made
punishable with imprisonment of either
description which may extend to six months
or with fine or with both. Sub section 2 of
Section 21 provides that any person who
being in-charge of any company or an
institution (by whatever name called) who
fails to report the commission of an offence
under Sub-Section 1 of Section 19 in respect
of a subordinate under his control, shall be
punishable with imprisonment with a term
which may extend to one year or with
fine. Certainly, such provisions are included
in with a view to ensure strict compliance of
the provisions under the POCSO Act and
thereby to ensure that the tender age of
children is not being abused and their
childhood and youth is protected against
exploitation.
12. Looking at the penal provisions
referred above, making failure to discharge
the obligation under Section 19 (1)
punishable only with imprisonment for a
short duration viz., six months, one may
think that it is not an offence to be taken
seriously. However, according to us that by
itself is not the test of seriousness or
otherwise of an offence of failure to
discharge the legal obligation under Section
19, punishable under Section 21 of POCSO
Act. We are fortified in our view, by the decisions
of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India and a two
Judge-Bench in Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State
of Maharashtra.
Xxx xxx xxx
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
14. […] the length of punishment is not
only the indicator of the gravity of offence and it
is to be judged by a totality of factors, especially
keeping in mind the background in which the
offence came to be recognized by the Legislature
in the specific international context. In this
context, it is also relevant to note that the
United Nations Convention on Rights of
Children, which was ratified by India on
11.12.1992, requires the State parties to
undertake all appropriate national, bilateral
and multilateral measures to prevent the
inducement or coercion of child to engage in
any unlawful sexual activity, the exploitative
use of children in prostitution or other
unlawful sexual practices etc. Articles 3 (2)
and 34 of the Convention have placed a
specific duty on the State to protect the
child from all forms of sexual exploitation
and abuse.
15. Prompt and proper reporting of
the commission of offence under the POCSO
Act is of utmost importance and we have no
hesitation to state that its failure on coming
to know about the commission of any
offence thereunder would defeat the very
purpose and object of the Act. We say so
taking into account the various provisions
thereunder. Medical examination of the
victim as also the accused would give many
important clues in a case that falls under the
POCSO Act. […] We refer to the aforesaid
provisions only to stress upon the fact that a
prompt reporting of the commission of an
offence under POCSO Act would enable
immediate examination of the victim
concerned and at the same time, if it was
committed by an unknown person, it would
also enable the investigating agency to
commence investigation without wasting
time and ultimately to secure the arrest and
medical examination of the culprit. There
can be no two views that in relation to
sexual offences medical evidence has much
corroborative value .”
… … …
259. We endorse the view and the directions
issued by this Court in Shankar Kisanrao
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
Khade (supra) and are of the considered view that a
meaningful effect to the provisions of the POCSO
can only be given if such directions are complied
with to the letter and spirit. We further caution the
courts to refrain from showing any form of leniency
or leeway in offences under Section 21 of the
POCSO, particularly to schools/educational
institutions, special homes, children's homes,
shelter homes, hostels, remand homes, jails, etc.
who failed to discharge their obligation of reporting
the commission or the apprehension of commission
of any offence or instance of child abuse or
exploitation under the POCSO. Section(s) 19, 20
and 21 of the POCSO are mandatory in nature, and
there can be no dilution of the salutary object and
purport of these provisions. Merely because Section
21 prescribes a lesser threshold of punishment, the
same in no way derogates or detracts from the
gravity or severity of the offence which has been
sought to be punished as held in Maroti (supra). It
is a settled position of law that the length of
punishment is not the only indicator of the gravity
of the offence and it is to be judged by a totality of
factors, especially keeping in mind the background
in which the offence came to be recognized by the
legislature in the specific international context i.e.,
the United Nations Convention on Rights of
Children, particularly Article(s) 3(2) and 34 of the
said Convention .”
10.2. The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment was
reiterating the elucidation of law laid down in SHANKAR
2
KISANRAO KHADE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA , wherein
it is held as follows:
“…. …. ….
2
(2013) 5 SCC 546
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
71. Section 21 prescribes punishment for failure
to report or record a case, which reads as follows:
“ 21. Punishment for failure to report
or record a case .—(1) Any person, who fails to
report the commission of an offence under sub-
section (1) of Section 19 or Section 20 or who
fails to record such offence under sub-section
(2) of Section 19 shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description which may
extend to six months or with fine or with both.
(2) Any person, being in charge of any
company or an institution (by whatever name
called) who fails to report the commission of an
offence under sub-section (1) of Section 19 in
respect of a subordinate under his control, shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one year and with fine.”
72. I may also point out that, in large numbers of
cases, children are abused by persons known to them or
who have influence over them. Criminal courts in this
country are galore with cases where children are abused
by adults addicted to alcohol, drugs, depression, marital
discord, etc. Preventive aspects have seldom been given
importance or taken care of. Penal laws focus more on
situations after commission of offences like violence,
abuse, exploitation of the children. Witnesses of many
such heinous crimes often keep mum taking shelter on
factors like social stigma, community pressure, and
difficulties of navigating the criminal justice system, total
dependency on the perpetrator emotionally and
economically and so on. Some adult members of family
including parents choose not to report such crimes to the
police on the plea that it was for the sake of protecting
the child from social stigma and it would also do more
harm to the victim. Further, they also take shelter
pointing out that in such situations some of the close
family members having known such incidents would not
extend medical help to the child to keep the same
confidential and so on, least bothered about the
emotional, psychological and physical harm done to the
child. Sexual abuse can be in any form like sexually
molesting or assaulting a child or allowing a child to be
sexually molested or assaulted or encouraging, inducing
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
or forcing the child to be used for the sexual gratification
of another person, using a child or deliberately exposing
a child to sexual activities or pornography or procuring
or allowing a child to be procured for commercial
exploitation and so on.
73. In my view, whenever we deal with an issue
of child abuse, we must apply the best interest of child
standard , since best interest of the child is paramount
and not the interest of perpetrator of the crime. Our
approach must be child-centric. Complaints received
from any quarter, of course, have to be kept confidential
without casting any stigma on the child and the family
members. But, if the tormentor is the family member
himself, he shall not go scot-free. Proper and sufficient
safeguards also have to be given to the persons who
come forward to report such incidents to the police or to
the Juvenile Justice Board.
74. The conduct of the police for not registering a
case under Section 377 IPC against the accused, the
agony undergone by a child of 11 years with moderate
intellectual disability, non-reporting of offence of rape
committed on her, after having witnessed the incident
either to the local police or to the Juvenile Justice Board
compel us to give certain directions for compliance in
future which, in my view, are necessary to protect our
children from such sexual abuses. This Court as parens
patriae has a duty to do so because the Court has
guardianship over minor children, especially with regard
to the children having intellectual disability, since they
are suffering from legal disability. Prompt reporting of
the crime in this case could have perhaps, saved the life
of a minor child of moderate intellectual disability.
75. The President of India on 3-2-2013
promulgated an Ordinance titled “the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2013”, further to amend the
Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; the Evidence
Act, 1872 and the Penal Code, 1860. By the Ordinance,
Sections 375, 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C and 376-D of
the Code have been substituted by new sections. The
word “rape” has been replaced by the word “sexual
assault”. Section 375 has also clarified that lack of
physical resistance is immaterial for constituting an
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
offence. A new Section 376-A has been added which
reads as follows:
“ 376-A. Punishment for causing death
or resulting in persistent vegetative state of
the victim .—Whoever, commits an offence
punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2) of Section 376 and in the course of such
commission inflicts an injury which causes the
death of the person or causes the person to be in
a persistent vegetative state, shall be punished
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than twenty years, but which may
extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean
the remainder of that person's natural life, or
with death.”
Therefore a person, who commits an offence punishable
under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 376
and causes death shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
twelve years but which may extend to imprisonment for
life, which shall mean the remainder of that person's
natural life or with death.
76. Considering the entire facts and circumstances
of the case, I am inclined to convert death sentence
awarded to the accused to rigorous imprisonment for life
and that all the sentences awarded will run
consecutively.
77. In my opinion, the case in hand calls for
issuing the following directions to various stakeholders
for due compliance:
77.1. The persons in charge of the
schools/educational institutions, special homes,
children homes, shelter homes, hostels, remand
homes, jails, etc. or wherever children are housed,
if they come across instances of sexual abuse or
assault on a minor child which they believe to have
been committed or come to know that they are
being sexually molested or assaulted are directed
to report those facts keeping upmost secrecy to
the nearest Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or
local police, and they, depending upon the gravity
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
of the complaint and its genuineness, take
appropriate follow-up action casting no stigma to
the child or to the family members.
77.2. Media personnel, persons in charge of
hotels, lodges, hospitals, clubs, studios and photograph
facilities have to duly comply with the provision of
Section 20 of Act 32 of 2012 and provide information to
the SJPU, or local police. Media has to strictly comply
with Section 23 of the Act as well.
77.3. Children with intellectual disability are more
vulnerable to physical, sexual and emotional abuse.
Institutions which house them or persons in care and
protection, if come across any act of sexual abuse, have
a duty to bring to the notice of the Juvenile Justice
Board/SJPU or local police and they in turn be in touch
with the competent authority and take appropriate
action.
77.4. Further, it is made clear that if the
perpetrator of the crime is a family member himself,
then utmost care be taken and further action be taken in
consultation with the mother or other female members
of the family of the child, bearing in mind the fact that
best interest of the child is of paramount consideration.
77.5. If hospitals, whether government or
privately-owned or medical institutions where
children are being treated come to know that
children admitted are subjected to sexual abuse,
the same will immediately be reported to the
nearest Juvenile Justice Board/SJPU and the
Juvenile Justice Board, in consultation with SJPU,
should take appropriate steps in accordance with
the law safeguarding the interest of the child.
77.6. The non-reporting of the crime by
anybody, after having come to know that a minor
child below the age of 18 years was subjected to
any sexual assault, is a serious crime and by not
reporting they are screening the offenders from
legal punishment and hence be held liable under
the ordinary criminal law and prompt action be
taken against them, in accordance with law.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
77.7. Complaints, if any, received
CPCR CPCR
by N , S , Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and
Child Helpline, NGOs or women's organisations, etc.,
they may take further follow-up action in consultation
with the nearest Juvenile Justice Board, SJPU or local
police in accordance with law.
77.8. The Central Government and the State
Governments are directed to constitute SJPUs in all the
districts, if not already constituted and they have to take
prompt and effective action in consultation with the
Juvenile Justice Board to take care of the child and
protect the child and also take appropriate steps against
the perpetrator of the crime.
77.9. The Central Government and every State
Government should take all measures as provided under
Section 43 of Act 32 of 2012 to give wide publicity to the
provisions of the Act through media including television,
radio and print media, at regular intervals, to make the
general public, children as well as their parents and
guardians, aware of the provisions of the Act.”
10.3. In JUST RIGHTS supra, the Apex Court also
considered the law laid down in the case of STATE OF
3
MAHARASHTRA v. DR. MAROTI , wherein it is held as
follows:
“…. …. ….
11. Having made such a short survey on
authorities on the exercise of power under Section
482CrPC as above, we will now refer to the object and
OCSO
purposes of the P Act. Article 15 of the Constitution,
inter alia confers powers upon the State to make special
provisions for children and Article 39( f ) provides not only
3
(2023) 4 SCC 298
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
that the State shall direct its policy towards securing that
the children are given opportunities to develop in a
healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity
but also to ensure that their childhood and youth are
protected against exploitation and against moral and
material abandonment. Recognising the constitutional
obligation and keeping in view the fundamental concept
under Article 15 of the Constitution and also realising
that sexual offences against children are not adequately
addressed by the existing laws, the P OCSO Act was
enacted. The provisions thereunder would reveal that it
also aims to ensure that such offenders are not spared
and should be properly booked.
… … …
15. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case [ Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India , (2023) 12 SCC 1:
2022 SCC OnLine SC 929], this Court observed that
the length of punishment is not only the indicator
of the gravity of offence and it is to be judged by a
totality of factors, especially keeping in mind the
background in which the offence came to be
recognised by the legislature in the specific
international context. In this context, it is also
relevant to note that the United Nations
Convention on Rights of Children, which was
ratified by India on 11-12-1992, requires the State
parties to undertake all appropriate national,
bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent the
inducement or coercion of child to engage in any
unlawful sexual activity, the exploitative use of
children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual
petitionerices, etc. Articles 3(2) and 34 of the
Convention have placed a specific duty on the
State to protect the child from all forms of sexual
exploitation and abuse .”
The Apex Court, in the afore-quoted judgments holds that,
Section 21 of the POCSO Act casts a legal obligation on any
person to report an offence to the concerned authorities
specified therein, if they have knowledge that an offence under
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
the POCSO Act has been committed. The obligation also
extends to individuals who have reason to believe that the
offence under the Act has been committed. The Apex court
further holds that these provisions are inserted with a view to
ensure strict compliance with the provisions under the POCSO
Act. The Apex Court further holds that Courts should refrain
from showing any form of leniency or leeway in offences under
Section 21 of the POCSO Act, particularly when the offence
occurs in schools/educational institutions, special homes,
children’s homes, shelter homes, hostels, remand homes and
jails, as those who have failed to discharge their obligation of
reporting would fall under the net of the offence under Section
21 of the POCSO Act. The Apex Court holds that merely
because Section 21 of the POCSO Act prescribes a lesser
threshold of punishment, the same in no way derogates or
detracts from the gravity or severity of the offence which has
been sought to be punished.
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
10.4. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in an
identical circumstance in SANJEEV KUMAR v. STATE (UT
4
ADMINISTRATION) , holds as follows:
“…. …. ….
5. The very opening lines of Section 19 of the
POCSO Act are reproduced herein below to lay emphasis:
“19. Reporting of offences. -1.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), any
person (including the child), who has
apprehension that an offence under this Act is
likely to be committed or has knowledge that
such an offence has been committed, he shall
provide such information to,-
(a) the Special Juvenile Police Unit; or
(b) the local police.”
6. The POCSO Act has been enacted under the
provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution of India which
inter-alia confers upon the State powers to make special
provisions for children. Furthermore, Article 39 of the
Constitution provides that the State shall in particular
direct its policy towards securing that the tender age of
children are not abused and their childhood and youth are
protected against exploitation and they are given facilities
to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of
freedom and dignity. Our country has ratified way back
on 11.02.1992, the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Children and had undertaken to make
appropriate laws to prevent inducement or coercion of a
child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity as well as
exploitation of children in prostitution or other unlawful
sexual practices including pornographic materials. The
same has been necessitated because of the ever increase
in cases of sexual offences against the children and it has
been observed by the National Crime Records Bureau in
4
2018 SCC OnLine P & H 7075
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
the country that a large number of cases are neither
specifically reported nor adequately penalised and it was
with this object in mind the POCSO Act has come about
by way of Act of 32 in the year 2012. Since the Act is a
special legislation and has kept aside the provisions of the
Criminal Procedure Code and the procedure and powers
of the special courts having been duly enumerated by
Chapter VIII of the POCSO Act, makes sufficiently clear
the very purpose for which the same have been brought
about.
7. Looking from another side, as per the testimony
of the father of the girl as CW-4, it was on 07.05.2015
the parents for the first time have discovered the abuse
of their minor daughter and upon their gaining confidence
of the child, it was brought to their notice how she was
being abused by the conductor of the school-bus. It is
well enumerated in his testimony that since it was late
evening, on the next day the family had gone to the
school of the child where they met the transporter and
narrated the incident even to the Principal of the school
but who failed to act into the matter and the parents were
assured of a suitable action on which they returned back
waiting a call from the authorities, but to no avail and
when the family was ultimately called to the school, they
again narrated the incident to the Principal and the
Principal promised them of suitable legal action and on
10.07.2015 (sic.) the father had given a complaint in
writing to the Principal and thereafter, visited the school
on 11.05.2015 to know the fate of their complaint and
then, the family again came to the school on 12.05.2015
and met the Principal and he has proved on record his
complaint made to the school authorities. When the
school authorities failed to initiate any action, on
13.05.2015 parents of the school children had. raised hue
and cry, which led to filing of the
criminal complaint against the accused and thus, was
arrested and put to trial.
8. This statement by the father of the child
victim is in itself illustrative of the reticence shown
by the school authorities, of whom the petitioner
happens to be the Administrator and instead of
having been given the knowledge, has tried to
sweep under the carpet for a sinister design and a
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
motivated cause and thus, in itself sufficient
explanation how the matter was got intentionally
delayed by cohorts bent upon frustrating in putting
to place the law of the land and therefore, to the
mind of this Court, is in itself sufficient explanation
for what has led to this delay. Furthermore, it is
well settled golden principle of criminal
jurisprudence that mere delay in lodging of criminal
proceedings is not taken to be fatal and the Court
needs to lift the veil to see the very reason how it
has come about and whether it was justified on the
part of the victim side and not an outcome of
embellished account for a motivated cause. Learned
counsel for the petitioner could not enliven his
arguments to support his submissions and
therefore, this submission as such is brushed aside.
9. It is not the case of the petitioner, as is
sought to be projected by the learned counsel
representing him that he has no role to play in the
administration of the school and since the matter
was specifically brought to the notice of the school
authorities and being the Administrator, by all
means the petitioner is responsible to ensure due
redressal of the grievances, especially in matters
involving the provisions of the POCSO Act. More so,
this omission to act tantamounts to abetment of an
offence as provided under Section 16 of the POCSO
Act.
10. Section 19 read with Section 21 of the
POCSO Act casts a heavy onus on any person who
fails to report the commission of an offence under
sub-section (1) of Section 19 or Section 20 of the
POCSO Act including for failure to record
commission of an offence. Sub-section (2) of Section
21 of the POCSO Act is reproduced as below to lay
emphasis:
“21. Punishment for failure to report or record a
case.-
1. xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
2. Any person, being in-charge of any
company or an institution (by whatever name
called) who fails to report the commission of an
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
offence under sub-section (1) of section 19 in
respect of a subordinate under his control, shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one year and with fine.”
11. Thus, a plain reading of these provisions
is in itself illustrative that the legal obligation that
is cast upon the school authorities in the present
case is to have reported the commission of offence
by all means which they failed to do so. Often it has
been observed, the disturbing trend in our society
in not reporting the instances of sexual assault on
minor children and which is a classical example in
the present case as well. The studied silence of the
school authorities including the petitioner is in itself
suggestive that by keeping mum they are trying to
screen the culprit of commission of such an offence.
12. In their vociferous arguments by the two sides,
learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Puneet Jindal,
Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Neha Anand Mahajan
and Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocates has sought to distinguish
intention, knowledge and reason to believe, by seeking
support from ‘ AS. Krishnan v. State of Kerala ’ (2004) 2
RCR (Cri) 312; and ‘ Joti Parshd v. State of Haryana ’
(1993) 1 RCR (Cri) 554. However, with due apologies the
cited ratios pertain to allegations of counterfeit and
forgery punishable under the Indian Penal Code, a
general substantial law code and which is factually at
much variance from the facts before this Court. This
Court seeks support from ‘ Dr. Sr. Tessy
Jose v. State of Kerala ’ (2018) 4 RCR (Cri) 114,
wherein in a latest view of August 2018, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a matter pertaining to the
POCSO Act has held that the word ‘knowledge’
means that some information received by such
person gives him/her knowledge about commission
of crime and therefore, casts no obligation on that
person to investigate and gather knowledge. By
virtue of Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, an
obligation is sought to be cast upon the person who
receives such, an information to inform the relevant
authorities of such a knowledge so as to ensure
that the law is put into motion. Learned counsel for
the petitioner to the specific query of the Court could not
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
in any manner convince what action was initiated either in
providing such information to any Special Juvenile Police,
local police or even entering in his school records for
furthering action into the matter, or what action has been
prompted by the school authorities as well as transporter
on the receipt of this information and it could not be
accepted, as is sought to be projected by the petitioner
side, that foisting this criminal liability upon the petitioner
and his associate, the transporter, would be too far
fetched. As has already been detailed, these
provisions have been specially enacted for a
specified purpose in attainment of the object and
the goals for which the said law has come into
force. Child protection is more than a right. It is a
framework or system by which the rights of a child
can come to be. The framework consists of various
duty bearers such as the departments of the
government, police, school, civil society, who all
have roles to play to ensure that a child's rights are
met and in the case that a child's rights are violated
that the violator be brought to justice and care be
provided to the child. Child protection is not only
treatment, but should also be preventive in nature.
Risk management needs to take place to reduce the
risk of violation of child rights in any given
circumstances or space.
13. In another view, a Single Bench of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in ‘ Balasaheb @ Suryakant
Yashwantrao Mane v. State of Maharashtra ’ (2017) 2 RCR
(Cri) 534, has expressed its opinion that where there is
enough material to come to the conclusion that
despite having knowledge that the offence
punishable under the POCSO Act has been
committed, the Management (Director of the Trust
in the said case) who instead of reporting the
matter either to the Special Juvenile Police or to the
local police, had insisted the first informant and
relatives of the victim, a female child, to settle the
matter, is itself sufficient ground to proceed against
the person so showing reticence into the matter. In
this case, besides the petitioner, his associate transporter
and even the Principal of the school, as has come in the
evidence, need to be hauled up for this collusion inter-se
between them and thus, trying to extinguish the embers
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
of this occurrence by suppressing the same with a mala
fide intention, which is well illustrative from the testimony
of the father of the girl. In the light of what has been
observed in the deposition of C W-4 Harvinder Singh
apparently, the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh in its
summoning order dated 05.08.2017 has missed this
material point and thus, to meet the ends of justice, this
Court deems it essential to exercise the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 and direct the Court below,
where the matter is pending, to ensure that even the
Principal, who had the knowledge of this incident of abuse
of a minor school girl, is not let off the hook and to take
appropriate action and to proceed ahead against her as
well, fully in accordance with law.
14. From what has come on the records, the
petitioner cannot hide behind the facade of lack of
knowledge or information and rather was duty
bound being an Administrator of the school relating
to which and where the occurrence has taken place
and which is well substantiated from the
proceedings of the Court whose orders have been
put to challenge in this petition. The fact that the
Commission has done its duty and the judicial
Court, on the basis of evidence before it, has passed
summoning order and framed charges and put the
guilty to trial, cannot in any manner be termed to
be unfounded, illegal or perverse necessitating
exercise of inherent powers by this Court .”
10.4.1. The High Court unequivocally holds that a school
Principal cannot seek refuge behind the façade of ignorance or
professed lack of information when an offence under the
POCSO Act occurs within the institutional ecosystem under his
stewardship. As the administrative head of the institution, the
Principal bears a statutory obligation to remain vigilant and to
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
ensure immediate compliance with the mandate of the Act. The
duty cast by Sections 19 and 21 of the Act is not passive or
contingent upon formal confirmation of the offence; it is
activated the moment credible information reaches the
institution.
10.4.2. In the case before the High Court, repeated
complaints had reached the Principal regarding the conduct of
the school bus driver and the conductor. Yet, instead of setting
the law in motion by reporting the matter to the jurisdictional
authorities, the complaints were allowed to languish in
institutional silence. Such deliberate inaction was held to
constitute a clear dereliction of the statutory duty to report.
The High Court, therefore, concluded that the Principal had
rendered himself liable for prosecution under Sections 19 and
21 of the POCSO Act, reiterating that institutional heads cannot
insulate themselves from criminal liability by pleading
ignorance when information of a sexual offence against a child
has come to their notice. The statutory command is one of
immediate disclosure, not institutional discretion.
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
10.5 In somewhat similar circumstance the High Court
5
of Madras in SEYED AHAMED v. STATE OF TAMILNADU ,
has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
8.The charge against the petitioners, A2 Principal
and A3 Secretary, is failure to report the commission of
offences under the POCSO Act by their subordinate, A1 /
Physical Education Teacher. This Court is unable to
countenance the submissions of the petitioners' Counsel
for more than one reasons. The POCSO Act casts a
strict, mandatory duty upon every person,
particularly heads of institutions, to report
commission of offences against children. Section
19(1) makes it obligatory to furnish such
information to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or
local police. Section 21(2) provides punishment for
persons in charge of institutions who fail to report
offences committed by subordinates.
Section 19(1) reads as under:
“19. Reporting of offences.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any person
(including the child), who has apprehension that
an offence under this Act is likely to be committed
or has knowledge that such an offence has been
committed, he shall provide such information
to,—
(a) the Special Juvenile Police Unit; or
(b) the local police.”
Section 21(2) reads as under:
“21. Punishment for failure to report or record a
case.—
5
Crl.OP(MD) Nos.10469 of 2025 and connected cases decided on
29.08.2025
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
(2) Any person, being in-charge of any
company or an institution (by whatever name
called) who fails to report the commission of an
offence under sub-section (1) of section 19 in
respect of a subordinate under his control, shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one year and with fine.”
9. The object of the statute is clear – to ensure
immediate reporting so that timely investigation
may be conducted and further abuse prevented.
Delay in reporting directly jeopardises both the
welfare of the child and the integrity of the
investigation .
10.In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti
(Crl.A.No.1874 of 2022, dated 02.11.2022), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court stressed that “prompt and proper
reporting of commission of offence under the
POCSO Act is of utmost importance” and failure
would defeat the very purpose of the Act. The
relevant portion is extracted as under:
“15. Prompt and proper reporting of
the commission of offence under the POCSO
Act is of utmost importance and we have no
hesitation to state that its failure on coming
to know about the commission of any
offence thereunder would defeat the very
purpose and object of the A ct. We say so
taking into account the various provisions
thereunder. ...”
11.Similarly, in Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of
Maharashtra [(2013) 5 SCC 546], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that non-reporting by institutional heads
amounts to screening offenders and is itself a
crime. The relevant portion is extracted as under:
“77. In my opinion, the case in hand calls
for issuing the following directions to various
stakeholders for due compliance:
77.1. The persons in charge of the
schools/educational institutions, special
homes, children homes, shelter homes,
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
hostels, remand homes, jails, etc. or
wherever children are housed, if they come
across instances of sexual abuse or assault
on a minor child which they believe to have
been committed or come to know that they
are being sexually molested or assaulted are
directed to report those facts keeping
upmost secrecy to the nearest Special
Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or local police,
and they, depending upon the gravity of the
complaint and its genuineness, take
appropriate follow-up action casting no
stigma to the child or to the family
members.
... ... ... 77.6. The non-reporting of the
crime by anybody, after having come to know
that a minor child below the age of 18 years was
subjected to any sexual assault, is a serious
crime and by not reporting they are screening the
offenders from legal punishment and hence be
held liable under the ordinary criminal law and
prompt action be taken against them, in
accordance with law.”
12.The Kerala High Court in XXXX v. State of
Kerala [2024 KER 53255] held that omission even
beyond 24 hours to report the matter would attract
culpability , in the following terms:
“13. In my view, if there is omission even
after getting information to report the same to
the Police after 24 hours atleast, the offence
punishable under section 19(1) of the POCSO Act
would get attracted. ... ”
13.Again in Dr. P. Ditto Tom v. State of Kerala
[2025 KER 15952] , it was reiterated by the Kerala High
Court that delay in reporting by persons in
responsible positions undermines investigation and
constitutes an offence. The relevant observation is
extracted as under:
“14. ... In the instant case, the revision
petitioner, who got knowledge regarding the
crime on 25.11.2020, failed to inform the same
and accordingly registration of crime was delayed
for a period of three weeks. That must have
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
attenuated timely investigation of the case
without elements of lacuna. In the instant case,
the prosecution materials would show that the
offence alleged against the revision petitioner is
made out, prima facie, from prosecution records,
warranting trial. ...”
14.In the case on hand, the materials disclose that
on 04.11.2024, both A2 and A3 had knowledge of the
incidents. The victims themselves have categorically
stated that they were advised by the petitioners not
to inform their parents and were assured that
action would be taken internally. The statement of
the Teacher, Sivasakthi, corroborates this version.
Such conduct cannot be construed as inadvertence
or ignorance; it amounts to a conscious decision to
withhold information from lawful authorities.
15.The argument that there is no statutory time
frame is fallacious. Though the Act does not fix hours
or days, the obligation is to report forthwith.
“Reasonable time” in the context of offences
against children cannot stretch to a week,
particularly when the intervening days included
disclosure to staff and parents.
16. The petitioners, as Principal and Secretary,
were custodians of trust, responsible for the
welfare and safety of their students. They owed a
higher duty of care and vigilance. Instead, they
placed the burden of silence on the shoulders of
minor victims, thereby exacerbating trauma and
delaying lawful intervention .”
10.5.1. The High Court of Madras emphatically holds that
the POCSO Act engrafts a strict and unyielding statutory
obligation upon every person, and more particularly upon the
heads and administrators of educational institutions, to report
the commission or knowledge of offences against children. The
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
obligation is neither optional nor capable of being diluted by
institutional considerations; it is an imperative command of the
statute intended to secure the immediate protection of children
from sexual abuse.
10.5.2. The protagonists before the Madras High Court
were the Principal and the Secretary of the School. While
examining the scope of their statutory obligations, the High
Court observed that the offices they occupied were not mere
administrative designations but positions of profound trust. As
the Principal and the Secretary, they stood as custodians of the
institution and, more importantly, custodians of the safety,
dignity and well-being of every child entrusted to their care.
Such positions inevitably cast upon them a higher duty of
vigilance, sensitivity and promptitude. The Court held that once
information disclosing the commission of an offence under the
POCSO Act reaches such functionaries, they are under an
immediate and mandatory obligation to report it to the
competent authorities. Any failure or deliberate omission to do
so is not merely an administrative lapse but a breach of the
statutory command embodied in Sections 19 and 21 of the
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
POCSO Act, exposing them to the penal consequences that the
legislation consciously prescribes.
10.6. The High Court of Delhi in NIRMALJEET KAUR v.
6
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI holds as follows:
“…. …. ….
5. A perusal of material placed on the record would
show that the incident relates to events that unfolded on
29.12.2014 in the form of an oral complaint received by
the petitioner from students against the accused teacher
relating to allegations of sexual harassment committed
during school hours and in the school premises.
Though petitioner claims that on an apology
tendered by the accused teacher, the students and
their parents were satisfied, however the records
show that the students and their parents had
approached the Director of Education on
31.12.2014 and raised their complaints against the
accused teacher. Apparently, the Joint Director
(Vigilance), NDMC vide communication dated
09.01.2015 while referring to a note dated
01.01.2015 received from the Education
Department asked the Dy. Director of N* School
Educational Society to seek petitioner's explanation
in the context of complaint against the accused
teacher. The petitioner furnished her explanation
stating that the teacher concerned was warned and
the parents being satisfied didn't want further
escalation.
6. Further perusal would reveal that vide noting
dated 19.01.2015, the petitioner was directed by the
school society to get the FIR registered. As such, from the
above sequence of events, it is discerned that the filing
6
2024 SCC OnLine Del.7879
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
of the complaint by the petitioner is not a case of
mere delayed compliance but rather no compliance
till she was directed to do so by the school
authorities. The act of students and their parents
approaching the Director of Education also indicates
that they were dissatisfied with the petitioner's
response to their complaints. In fact, vide the
above communication, the school authorities had
formally issued a warning to the petitioner also.
7. The statute contemplates mandatory
compliance and failure to report entails penal
consequences. The statute has been enacted with
the object to protect children from offences of
sexual assault, sexual harassment and
pornography. The Supreme Court in Eera through Dr.
Manjula Krippendorf v. State NCT of Delhi , (2017) 15 SCC
133 had remarked on the statement and object of
the POCSO Act as follows:
“20. The purpose of referring to the
Statement of Objects and Reasons and the
Preamble of the POCSO Act is to appreciate
that the very purpose of bringing a
legislation of the present nature is to protect
the children from the sexual assault,
harassment and exploitation, and to secure
the best interest of the child. On an avid and
diligent discernment of the Preamble, it is
manifest that it recognises the necessity of
the right to privacy and confidentiality of a
child to be protected and respected by every
person by all means and through all stages
of a judicial process involving the child. Best
interest and wellbeing are regarded as being
of paramount importance at every stage to
ensure the health physical, emotional,
intellectual and social development of the
child. There is also a stipulation that sexual
exploitation and sexual abuse are heinous
offences and need to be effectively
addressed. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons provides regard being had to the
constitutional mandate, to direct its policy
towards securing that the tender age of
children is not abused and their childhood is
protected against exploitation and they are
given facilities to develop in a healthy
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
manner and in conditions of freedom and
dignity ….”
8. As per the petitioner's own case, in terms of
explanation furnished to the school authorities, she had
become aware of the incident on 29.12.2014 itself. The
incident relates to act committed by the school
teacher to students in the school premises. The
reporting of such an incident is envisaged to be
mandatory under Section 21 of the Act. The
petitioner's reliance on the decision in Jasvinder
Kaur (Supra) is misplaced as the said decision concerned
with a case of delayed reporting. In the present case, as
already noted above, the filing of complaint with
police authorities was not a voluntary act of the
petitioner. It was done only when the school
authorities directed her to do so in pursuance to
communications received from the Education
department.
9. This Court at the stage of 482 Cr. P.C. will
not go in the sufficiency of the explanation
tendered by the petitioner and is of the considered
opinion that in the peculiar facts of the case, no
interference is called for . The petition is accordingly
dismissed.”
10.6.1. The High Court of Delhi, once again, underscores
the indispensable importance of the statutory mandate of
compulsory reporting embodied in Sections 19 and 21 of the
POCSO Act. The High Court reiterates that the legislative
command admits of neither discretion nor delay. The moment
information disclosing the commission of a sexual offence
against a child reaches a person upon whom the statute casts
the obligation, the duty to report springs into operation with full
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
vigour. Institutional reputation, internal enquiries, or subjective
satisfaction can never supplant the statutory requirement of
immediate disclosure to the competent authorities.
10.6.2. The petitioner before the High Court was the
Acting Principal of a school who, despite having knowledge of
the alleged offence, failed to report the matter in accordance
with the mandate of the Act. Examining the contours of the
obligation under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, the High Court
held that the office of an Acting Principal carries with it the
same statutory responsibilities as that of a regular Principal.
The Court observed that the obligation to report is attached not
to the nomenclature of the office but to the authority and
responsibility vested in the person administering the institution.
Failure to discharge that obligation, despite knowledge of the
offence, attracts the penal consequences contemplated under
Section 21 of the POCSO Act.
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
10.7. The High Court of Orissa in PRASANTA UMAR
7
PANDA v. STATE OF ORISSA , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
8. Section 21 of the POCSO Act reads as follows:-
(1) Any person, who fails to report the
commission of an offence under sub-section(1) of
Section 19 or section 20 or who fails to record
such offence under sub-section(2) of section 19
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description which may extend to six months or
with fine or with both.
(2) Any person, being in-charge of any
company or an institution (by whatever name
called) who fails to report the commission the
commission of an offence under sub-section (1) of
section 19 in respect of a subordinate under his
control, shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one year and with fine.
(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall
not apply to a child under this Act.
9. According to the prosecution, the principal
accused committed offence of rape not within the
premises of the School Hostel but somewhere
inside a jungle in the vicinity of the victim's father's
house. The petitioner, as the Headmaster of the
High School, is said to have committed an offence
punishable under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act
on the allegation that having been in-charge of an
institution he failed to report as required under
Section 19 of the POCSO Act which makes it
obligatory on the part of any person, who has
apprehension that an offence under the said Act is
likely to be committed or has knowledge that such
an offence has been committed, to give such
information to:
(i) Special Juvenile Police Unit.
7
2015 SCC OnLine Ori 484
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
(ii) The Local Police.
10. It is argued that since the offence was not
committed within the Hostel/School premises but outside
it, somewhere near the village of the victim, the
Headmaster is not under any obligation to make such a
report even if it is alleged that he had the knowledge that
an offence punishable under the POCSO Act had been
committed. The argument seems to be having some
force.
11. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of POCSO Act is
applicable to failure on the part of In-charge of a
company or any institution to report the commission of an
offence punishable under the POCSO Act in respect of a
subordinate under his control. There being no such
allegation that any offence was committed punishable
under the POCSO Act in respect of a subordinate under
the control of the Headmaster of the High School, the
petitioner cannot be booked under sub-section (2) of
Section 21 of POCSO Act. However, sub-section (1) of
Section 21 makes it obligatory for any person to
make a report as required under Section 19(1) of
the POCSO Act about the commission of an offence
punishable under the Act. Since it is alleged by the
prosecution and supported by materials available in
the case diary that the petitioner, as the
Headmaster of the High School, had got the
information that the victim had become pregnant
he was under an obligation to make a report to
either the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the Local
Police. So, there are materials making out a prima
facie case under Section 21(1) of POCSO Act as
against the petitioner .”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
A singular and unbroken stream of judicial thought
courses through all the afore-quoted pronouncements:
the statutory mandate under Section 21 of the POCSO
Act admits of no dilution, no hesitation, and no delay.
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
The duty to report an offence against a child is not a
matter of institutional discretion but an imperative cast
by the statute, the breach of which itself constitutes a
distinct offence.
11. It is in the backdrop of this settled exposition of law
that the complaint lodged by the father of the victim assumes
significance and merits close scrutiny. It reads as follows:
,
“ಇವ ಂದ
. ,
ಾ
ೋಾ ಕೃಷ ಾನುಾ
#403, 3 (47 Years, Hindu, GSB)
¥sÉÆèÃgï
(Mob No. 9972721172
²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ
,
ಇವ
ೆ
ಾನ ಇ ೆ ಕ
.
ಮ !ಾ "#ೕ$ %ಾ&ೆ 'ವ(ಗ*
:
+ಷಯ ನನ- ಮಗನ .ೕ/ೆ ನ ೆ0ರುವ /ೈಂ3ಕ 4ೌಜ7ನವನು- ಾ/ಾ 8ಬ:ಂ0
.
ಮು;<=ಾ> ಅವನ .ೕ/ೆ @ೌAಯ7 ನ ೆ8ರುವ ಬ
ೆ* ದೂರು
,
ಾನBೆ
xxxxxxx
ನನ- ಮಗ ಾದ ಎಕ /ೆಂD ಇಂ3EF GೕHಯಂ ಸೂJ
10 .02.06.2026 1.00 A.M
ಮೂಡL4ೆAಯ#E ೇ ತರಗN ಓದುNP4ಾQ ೆ ರಂದು
ೆ ಅವನ
xxxxxxx .
.ೕ/ೆ ಅವನ ಸಹ ಾSTಾದ /ೈಂ3ಕ zËdð£Àå ನ ೆ8ರುUಾPೆ ಕೂಡ/ೇ
.
ಅವ £ÀÄ Vಾಡ7W ಅವ
ೆ ಕಂ ೆEೕಂD @ೊX ರುUಾPೆ ೆಳ
ೆ* ಈ +ಷಯವನು-
, ,
ಮು[ೊ ೕಾ\ಾಯರು ಸ=ಾಯಕ ಮು[ೊ ೕಾ\ಾಯರು ಮತುP +4ಾ ]7
.
ಕ/ಾ &ಾ^@ಾಯವರು ಅಸಮಪ7ಕVಾ3 `ವ7 8ದರು ಅವರು aಾbಗಳ =ೇc@ೆಯನು-
4ಾಖ#ಸ#ಲE 88X+ ದೃ ಾವcಗಳನು- ಪ 'ೕ#ಸ#ಲE ಮತುP ಅವನ ದೂರನು-
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
.
ಗಂfೕರVಾ3 ಪ ಗgಸ#ಲE ಅವರು ನನ- ಬ#ಪಶು ಮಗನ .ೕ/ೆ ಸಮiN ಕತ ದ#E
.
jಾಗವ 84ಾQ ೆಂದು ಸುಳkl ಆBೋಪ ಾHದರು +4ಾ ]7 ಕ/ಾ &ಾ^@ಾ AiÀÄÄ
xxxxxxx
ಬBೆದ ಮೂಲ ಪತAವನು- ಾಶಪH8 /ೈಂ3ಕ ಅಪBಾಧ ನ ೆ0ಲE ಮತುP ಇಬ:ರು
ಹುಡುಗರ ನಡುVೆ ಜಗಳದ ಪ &ಾಮVಾ3 ಸುಳkl ದೂರು `ೕಡ/ಾ34ೆ ಎಂದು ತಮi
.
ಸೂಚ ೆಯಂUೆ ಮUೊPಂದು ಪತAವನು- ಬBೆಯುವಂUೆ ಾHದರು ಇದ@ೆJ aಾbTಾ3 ಅವರ
. Pocso
ಕpೇ ಯ 88X+ ದೃ ಾವcಯ#E ದೃqೕಕ ಸಬಹುದು @ಾrQಯH «ZÁgÀuÉ
.
£ÀqɸÀĪÀ §zÀ®Ä ಅವನನು- ೆದಸ/ಾsತು
ಈ +ಷಯವನು- ಸಂaೆtಯು ನಮi ಗಮನ@ೆJ ತರ#ಲE =ಾಗೂ `ಯಮಗಳ ಪA@ಾರ
rd
(3 June) 1:46 H.M
+pಾರ&ೆ ನ ೆ8ಲE ಾನು ಮ\ಾ ಹ- @ೆJ
ೆ ಕBೆ ಾH4ಾಗ
ªÀÄgÀÄ¢£À
ಆBೋuಯು ನನ- ಮಗನ +ರುದv ಅಪBಾಧ ಎಸ3ರುವwದನು- ಒuy@ೊಂH4ಾQ ೆ ಎಂದು
. H.M
=ೇcದರು ಇಬ:ರು ಇಬ:ರು ಇಬ:ರು ಇಬ:ರು ಹುಡುಗರ ಹುಡುಗರ ಹುಡುಗರ ಹುಡುಗರ @ೊಠHಗಳನು- @ೊಠHಗಳನು- @ೊಠHಗಳನು- @ೊಠHಗಳನು- ಬದ/ಾsಸುವw4ಾ3 ಬದ/ಾsಸುವw4ಾ3 ಬದ/ಾsಸುವw4ಾ3 ಬದ/ಾsಸುವw4ಾ3 ನಮ
ೆ ನಮ
ೆ ನಮ ನಮ
ೆ
ೆ ¨sÀ ರವaೆ ರವaೆ ರವaೆ ರವaೆ
. POCSO
`ೕHದರು `ೕHದರು `ೕHದರು `ೕHದರು ಾ/ೆಯು ಾ/ೆಯು ಾ/ೆಯು ಾ/ೆಯು @ಾrQಯH @ಾrQಯH @ಾrQಯH @ಾrQಯH Tಾವw4ೇ Tಾವw4ೇ Tಾವw4ೇ Tಾವw4ೇ +pಾರ&ೆ +pಾರ&ೆ +pಾರ&ೆ +pಾರ&ೆ ನೆ8ಲE ನೆ8ಲE ನ ನೆ8ಲE ೆ8ಲE =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ ಈ
.
ಅಪBಾಧವನು- ಅಪBಾಧವನು- ಅಪBಾಧವನು- ಅಪBಾಧವನು- ಮು;< ಮು;< ಮು;< ಮು;< =ಾ>4ಾQBೆ =ಾ>4ಾQBೆ =ಾ>4ಾQBೆ =ಾ>4ಾQBೆ
8
ೇ ಜೂW ರಂದು ನನ- ಮಗ`ಂದ 8>Jದ ಒಂದು ( ೈ {ೕನನು- ಇಬ:ರು
ಹುಡುಗರು ಾ/ಾ ಅ^@ಾ ಗc
ೆ ಒuy8ದರು =ಾಗೂ ಇದರ ಬ
ೆ* ನಮ
ೆ ಾ/ೆ
ೆ
. phone
=ಾಜBಾಗಲು Nc8ದರು ಾನು ಹತP ೇ ಜೂW ರಂದು ಾ/ೆ
ೆ jೇX `ೕH ಅನು-
. .
ನನ- =ೆಂಡNಯ4ಾ3 ಗುರುN84ೆ ಅದು ಹಲVಾರು Nಂಗಳkಗcಂದ ಬಳ@ೆಯ#Eರ#ಲE
. charger
=ಾaೆ
ೆ Uೆ
ೆದು@ೊಂಡು =ೋಗುವ ಉ4ೆQೕಶ ಇರ#ಲE ಇದರ ಇರ#ಲE ಮತುP
Discharge . Pin lock .
ಸಂಪ}ಣ7Vಾ3 ಆ3ತುP ಆ3ತುP =ಾ
ಾ3 Tಾವw4ೇ Tಾವw4ೇ Tಾವw4ೇ Tಾವw4ೇ
.
ದುರುಪ•ೕಗ ದುರುಪ•ೕಗ ದುರುಪ•ೕಗ ದುರುಪ•ೕಗ ಇರ#ಲE ಇರ#ಲE ಇರ#ಲE ಇರ#ಲE ಮತುP ಮತುP ಮತುP ಮತುP `ಯಮಗಳನು- `ಯಮಗಳನು- `ಯಮಗಳನು- `ಯಮಗಳನು- ಉಲEಂ ಉಲEಂ€ಸುವ ಉಲEಂ ಉಲEಂ €ಸುವ €ಸುವ €ಸುವ ಉ4ೆQೕಶ ಉ4ೆQೕಶ ಉ4ೆQೕಶ ಉ4ೆQೕಶ ಇರ#ಲE ಇರ#ಲE ಇರ#ಲE ಇರ#ಲE »ÃVzÀÝgÀÆ
¸ÀºÀ JZÀÑjPÉ `ೕH `ೕH `ೕH `ೕH {ೕನನು- {ೕನನು- {ೕನನು- {ೕನನು- ನಮ
ೆ ನಮ
ೆ ನಮ ನಮ
ೆ
ೆ ಂNರು3ಸುವ ಂNರು3ಸುವ ಂNರು3ಸುವ ಂNರು3ಸುವ ಬದಲು ಬದಲು ಬದಲು ಬದಲು ಏಳk ಏಳk ಏಳk ಏಳk 0ನ 0ನ 0ನ 0ನ @ಾಲ @ಾಲ @ಾಲ @ಾಲ ೌ>ಕVಾ3 ೌ>ಕVಾ3 ೌ>ಕVಾ3 ೌ>ಕVಾ3
Rs. 25,000 .
ಅಾನತು
ೊc8 ಅಾನತು
ೊc8 ಅ ಅಾನತು
ೊc8 ಾನತು
ೊc8 ದಂಡವನು- ದಂಡವನು- ದಂಡವನು- ದಂಡವನು- ಒUಾPs8ದರು ಒUಾPs8ದರು ಒUಾPs8ದರು ಒUಾPs8ದರು ಇದರ ಇದರ ಇದರ ಇದರ ಬ
ೆ* ಬ
ೆ* ಬ
ೆ* ಬ
ೆ* #‚ತ #‚ತ #‚ತ #‚ತ ಆ4ೇಶ ಆ4ೇಶ ಆ4ೇಶ ಆ4ೇಶ
. Mobile
@ೇcದರು @ೇcದರು @ೇcದರು @ೇcದರು `Bಾಕಸ/ಾsತು `Bಾಕಸ/ಾsತು `Bಾಕ `Bಾಕಸ/ಾsತು ಸ/ಾsತು Tಾವw4ೇ Tಾವw4ೇ Tಾವw4ೇ Tಾವw4ೇ ದುರುಪ•ೕಗ ದುರುಪ•ೕಗ ದುರುಪ•ೕಗ ದುರುಪ•ೕಗ aಾLೕ aಾLೕ aಾLೕ aಾLೕ vÁ ಗ0ದQರೂ ಗ0ದQರೂ ಗ0ದQರೂ ಗ0ದQರೂ
Phone .
C£ÀÄß ನನ ನನ
ೆ ನನ
ೆ ನನ
ೆ
ೆ ಹaಾPಂ ಹaಾPಂತ ಹaಾPಂ ಹaಾPಂ ತಸಲು ತಸಲು ತಸಲು ಸಲು `Bಾಕಸ/ಾsತು `Bಾಕಸ/ಾsತು `Bಾಕ `Bಾಕಸ/ಾsತು ಸ/ಾsತು ನಮi ನಮi ನಮi ನಮi ಐದು ಐದು ಐದು ಐದು ವಷ7ಗಳ ವಷ7ಗಳ ವಷ7ಗಳ ವಷ7ಗಳ
photo File Phone
Vೈಯ>Pಕ Vೈಯ>Pಕ Vೈಯ>Pಕ Vೈಯ>Pಕ 4ಾಖ/ೆಗಳk 4ಾಖ/ೆಗಳk 4ಾಖ/ೆಗಳk 4ಾಖ/ೆಗಳk ಗಳk ಗಳk ಗಳk ಗಳk ಗಳk ಗಳk ಗಳk ಗಳk ಒಳ@ೊಂHರುವ ಒಳ@ೊಂHರುವ ಒಳ@ೊಂHರುವ ಒಳ@ೊಂHರುವ C£ÀÄß
.
@ಾನೂನು @ಾನೂನು @ಾನೂನು @ಾನೂನು ¨Á» ರVಾ3 ರVಾ3 ರVಾ3 ರVಾ3 ವಶಪH8@ೊಳl/ಾ34ೆ ವಶಪH8@ೊಳl/ಾ34ೆ ವಶಪH8@ೊಳl/ಾ34ೆ ವಶಪH8@ೊಳl/ಾ34ೆ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ ನಮ
ೆ ನಮ
ೆ ನಮ ನಮ
ೆ
ೆ `ೕಡಲು `ೕಡಲು `Bಾಕ `ೕಡಲು `ೕಡಲು `Bಾಕಸ/ಾ34ೆ `Bಾಕಸ/ಾ34ೆ `Bಾಕಸ/ಾ34ೆ ಸ/ಾ34ೆ
- ,
ಾ/ಾ ಾ/ಾ ಾ/ಾ ಾ/ಾ 8ಬ:ಂ0 8ಬ:ಂ0 8ಬ:ಂ0 8ಬ:ಂ0 ಈಗ ಈಗ ಈಗ ಈಗ ಸುಳkl ಸುಳkl ಸುಳkl ಸುಳkl ಕ„ೆ ಕ„ೆ ಕ„ೆ ಕ„ೆ ಕX 4ೆ ಕX 4ೆ ಕX ಕX 4ೆ 4ೆ ನನ- ನನ- ನನ- ನನ- ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಬc ಬc ಬc ಬc {ೕW {ೕW {ೕW {ೕW ಇತುP ತುP ತುP ತುP
blackmail
ಆBೋu
ೆ ಆBೋu
ೆ ಆBೋu ಆBೋu
ೆ
ೆ ಅದು ಅದು ಅದು ಅದು Nc0ತುP Nc0ತುP Nc0ತುP Nc0ತುP =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ ಇ4ೇ ಇ4ೇ ಇ4ೇ ಇ4ೇ +ಷಯ@ೆJ +ಷಯ@ೆJ +ಷಯ@ೆJ +ಷಯ@ೆJ ನನ- ನನ- ನನ- ನನ- ಮಗನನು- ಮಗನನು- ಮಗನನು- ಮಗನನು-
.
ಾHದನು ಾHದನು ಾHದನು ಾHದನು ಆದQಂದ ಆದQಂದ ಆದQ ಆದQಂದ ಂದ ನನ- ನನ- ನನ- ನನ- ಮಗ ಮಗ ಮಗ ಮಗ ಸುಳkl ಸುಳkl ಸುಳkl ಸುಳkl /ೈಂ3ಕ /ೈಂ3ಕ /ೈಂ3ಕ /ೈಂ3ಕ ಅಪBಾಧ ಅಪBಾಧ ಅಪBಾಧ ಅಪBಾಧ ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು `ೕHದ `ೕHದ `ೕHದ `ೕHದ £ÀÄ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಇದು ಇದು ಇದು ಇದು
3 June
ಸುಳkl ಸುಳkl ಸುಳkl ಸುಳkl aಾ…ವನು- aಾ…ವನು- aಾ…ವನು- aಾ…ವನು- ಸೃ† ಸಲು ಸೃ† ಸಲು ಸೃ† ಸೃ† ಸಲು ಸಲು >AGನ >AGನ >AGನ >AGನ uತೂ uತೂ uತೂ uತೂ ಏ@ೆಂದBೆ ಏ@ೆಂದBೆ ಏ@ೆಂದBೆ ಏ@ೆಂದBೆ ೇ ೇ ೇ ೇ ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು
.
ಮು[ೋಾ\ಾಯರು ಮು[ೋಾ\ಾಯರು ಮು[ೊ ಮು[ೋಾ\ಾಯರು ೕಾ\ಾಯರು ಆBೋu ಆBೋu ಆBೋu ಆBೋu ಅಪBಾಧ ಅಪBಾಧ ಅಪBಾಧ ಅಪBಾಧ ಒuy@ೊಂH4ಾQೆ ಒuy@ೊಂH4ಾQೆ ಒuy@ೊಂH4ಾQ ಒuy@ೊಂH4ಾQೆ ೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು =ೇcದQರು =ೇcದQರು =ೇcದQರು =ೇcದQರು
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
ನನ- ಮಗನ .ೕ/ೆ ನ ೆದ /ೈಂ3ಕ zËdð£Àå ದ +ಷಯVಾ3 `ಮi ತ…ಣದ ಗಮನ
.
ಮತುP ಕAಮವನು- @ೋರುUೆPೕ ೆ ಾಯ AiÀÄÄ ತ +pಾರ&ೆಯ ಮೂಲಕ 'ೕಘAVಾ3
ಪ ಹಸೇ@ಾ3 @ೋರುUೆPೕ ೆ =ಾಗೂ ( ೈ {ೕನನು- ನಮ
ೆ ಂNರು38
.
@ೊಡ ೇ@ಾ3 @ೇc@ೊಳklUೆPೕ ೆ
.
/ೈಂ3ಕ 4ೌಜ7ನ ದ ಬ
ೆ* ಸಂbಪP ಾ N
st
1 xxxxxxx
ಜೂW ಜೂW ಜೂW ಜೂW ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಜˆರ ಜˆರ ಜˆರ ಜˆರ 'ೕತ 'ೕತ 'ೕತ 'ೕತ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ ತ/ೆ ತ/ೆ ತ/ೆ ತ/ೆ Nರುಗು Nರುಗು Nರುಗು Nರುಗು « @ೆsಂದ @ೆsಂದ @ೆsಂದ @ೆsಂದ ಬಳ# ಬಳ# ಬಳ# ಬಳ#
nd
10.30-11 P.M . (June 2 ) 1
.H8W .H8W .H8W .H8W aೇ+8 aೇ+8 aೇ+8 aೇ+8
ೆ
ೆ
ೆ
ೆ ಮಲ3ದನು ಮಲ3ದನು ಮಲ3ದನು ಮಲ3ದನು ಮಧBಾNA ಮಧBಾNA ಮಧ ಮಧBಾNA BಾNA ಗಂ‰ೆಯ ಗಂ‰ೆಯ ಗಂ‰ೆಯ ಗಂ‰ೆಯ
xxxxxxx Roomate
ಸುಾ
ೆ ಸುಾ
ೆ ಸು ಸುಾ
ೆ ಾ
ೆ ಅವ`
ೆ ಅವ`
ೆ ಅವ` ಅವ`
ೆ
ೆ ಎಚ<ರVಾ4ಾಗ ಎಚ<ರVಾ4ಾಗ ಎಚ<ರVಾ4ಾಗ ಎಚ<ರVಾ4ಾಗ ಎನು-ವ ಎನು-ವ ಎನು-ವ ಎನು-ವ ಅವನ ಅವನ ಅವನ ಅವನ `Gದ `Gದ `G `Gದ ದ
private parts
'ಶ-ವನು- 'ಶ-ವನು- 'ಶ-ವನು- 'ಶ-ವನು- ನನ- ನನ- ನನ- ನನ- ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಾs
ೆ ಾs
ೆ ಾs
ೆ ಾs
ೆ ತುರು>8ದನು ತುರು>8ದನು ತುರು>8ದನು ತುರು>8ದನು =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ ನನ- ನನ- ನನ- ನನ- ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ನು- ನು- ನು- ನು-
. Roomate xxxxxxx
ೆ>J ೆ>JರುUಾPೆ ೆ>J ೆ>J ರುUಾPೆ ರುUಾPೆ ರುUಾPೆ ತ…ಣVೇ ತ…ಣVೇ ತ…ಣVೇ ತ…ಣVೇ ಅವನ ಅವನ ಅವನ ಅವನ ಇೊ-ಬ: ಇೊ-ಬ: ಇ ಇೊ-ಬ: ೊ-ಬ: ಆದ ಆದ ಆದ ಆದ ಎL:ಸಲು ಎL:ಸಲು ಎL:ಸಲು ಪAಯತ- ಎL:ಸಲು ಪAಯತ- ಪAಯತ- ಪAಯತ-
. . resident
ಪಟ ನು ಪಟ ನು ಪಟ ಪಟ ನು ನು
ಾಢ`4ೆAಯ#E
ಾಢ`4ೆAಯ#E
ಾಢ`4ೆAಯ#E
ಾಢ`4ೆAಯ#E ಇರುವwದಂದ ಇರುವwದಂದ ಇರುವwದ ಇರುವwದಂದ ಂದ ಅವನು ಅವನು ಅವನು ಅವನು ಎ0Qರುವw0ಲE ಎ0Qರುವw0ಲE ಎ0Qರುವw0ಲE ಎ0Qರುವw0ಲE ತ…ಣVೇ ತ…ಣVೇ ತ…ಣVೇ ತ…ಣVೇ ಅವನು ಅವನು ಅವನು ಅವನು
warden Chethan Rudresh Naik. .
ಆದ ಆದ ಆದ ಆದ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ ಇವ
ೆ ಇವ
ೆ ಇವ ಇವ
ೆ
ೆ ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು `ೕHರುUಾPೆ `ೕHರುUಾPೆ `ೕHರುUಾP `ೕHರುUಾPೆ ೆ ಈ
.ೕಲJಂಡ .ೕಲJಂಡ .ೕಲJಂಡ .ೕಲJಂಡ +ಷಯವನು- +ಷಯವನು- +ಷಯವನು- +ಷಯವನು- ತ„ಾಕ]ತVಾ3 ತ„ಾಕ]ತVಾ3 ತ„ಾಕ]ತVಾ3 ತ„ಾಕ]ತVಾ3 ಅವನು ಅವನು ಅವನು ಅವನು ಪ4ೇ ಪ4ೇ ಪ4ೇ ಪ4ೇ ಪ4ೇ ಪ4ೇ ಪ4ೇ ಪ4ೇ ಪwನರು ಪwನರುಚ< ಪwನರು ಪwನರು ಚ<8ದರು ಚ<8ದರು ಚ<8ದರು 8ದರು ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ ಕೂಡ
,
'ವಪAaಾŒ 'ವಪAaಾŒ ಭD ಭD ಸ=ಾಯಕ ಸ=ಾಯಕ ಮು[ೋಾ\ಾಯBಾದ ಮು[ೊ ೕಾ\ಾಯBಾದ ಮು[ೋಾ\ಾಯBಾದ ಮು[ೊ ೕಾ\ಾಯBಾದ 'Aೕ 'Aೕ
'ವಪAaಾŒ 'ವಪAaಾŒ ಭD ಭD ಸ=ಾಯಕ ಸ=ಾಯಕ ಮು[ೋಾ\ಾಯBಾದ ಮು[ೋಾ\ಾಯBಾದ ಮು[ೋಾ\ಾಯBಾದ ಮು[ೋಾ\ಾಯBಾದ 'Aೕ 'Aೕ
,
ಜಯ'ೕ/ಾ ಜಯ'ೕ/ಾ ಜಯ'ೕ/ಾ ಜಯ'ೕ/ಾ ಬ!ಾl ಬ!ಾl ಬ!ಾl ಬ!ಾl =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ =ಾಗೂ ಮಕJಳ ಮಕJಳ ಮಕJಳ ಮಕJಳ ಕ/ಾ&ಾ^@ಾTಾದ ಕ/ಾ&ಾ^@ಾTಾದ ಕ/ಾ ಕ/ಾ&ಾ^@ಾTಾದ &ಾ^@ಾTಾದ 'Aೕ 'Aೕ 'Aೕ 'Aೕ BಾŽೇ• BಾŽೇ• BಾŽೇ• BಾŽೇ• /ೋ /ೋ /ೋ /ೋ ¨ÉÆà ಇವರು ಇವರು ಇವರು ಇವರು
.
ಈ +ಷಯವನು- +ಷಯವನು- +ಷಯವನು- +ಷಯವನು- ಸಮಪ7ಕVಾ3 ಸಮಪ7ಕVಾ3 ಸಮಪ7ಕVಾ3 ಸಮಪ7ಕVಾ3 `ವ7 8ದರು `ವ7 8ದರು `ವ7 8ದರು `ವ7 8ದರು
,
ತಮi + ಾˆ8
/-”
ಸ
(Emphasis added)
If the allegations in the complaint are accepted, as they
necessarily must be at this stage, they depict something far
graver than a mere omission to report. The allegation is not
confined to passive silence. It is alleged that the victim
immediately informed the resident warden of the incident; that
the complaint was brushed aside as a consensual act; that the
Child Welfare Officer destroyed the original letter written by the
victim; compelled the child to rewrite another version
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
exonerating the perpetrator; threatened the victim with
consequences under the POCSO Act itself; and consciously
withheld the incident from the parents for several days. Such
allegations, if ultimately established in the course of
investigation, portray a deliberate attempt not merely to
remain silent but to suppress the complaint, manipulate the
narrative, and shield the alleged offender from the operation of
law. Whether these allegations are ultimately proved is a
matter that falls exclusively within the domain of investigation.
At the stage of considering a prayer for quashing, this Court is
not expected to meticulously sift the evidence or pronounce
upon the truthfulness of rival versions. The Court is required
only to ascertain whether the allegations, taken at their face
value, disclose the commission an offence.
12. Educational institutions, whether humble in size
or sprawling in their establishment, whether catering to
children from the most modest backgrounds or the most
privileged strata of society, stand in loco parentis . They
are not mere centers of instruction; they are centers
entrusted with the safety, dignity and well-being of
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
children. The moment any incident disclosing the
ingredients of an offence under the POCSO Act comes to
their knowledge, the statutory mandate under Sections
19 and 21 of the POCSO Act springs into immediate
operation. The obligation to report is instantaneous,
absolute and admits of no discretion. There is no window
for deliberation, no latitude for internal inquiry, no scope
for institutional image-management and certainly no
licence to dilute, embellish or alter the complaint in an
attempt to shield the reputation of the institution, as is
prima facie discernible in the case at hand.
13. Silence in such circumstances is not institutional
prudence; it is statutory delinquency. Delay is not
administrative convenience; it is a betrayal of the
confidence reposed in the institution by every parent
who entrusts a child to its care. Any attempt to suppress,
modify or camouflage the allegations, instead of
reporting them forthwith to the jurisdictional authorities,
only emboldens the perpetrator, deepens the trauma of
the victim and frustrates the very object for which the
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
POCSO Act was enacted. Institutions which choose
reputation over responsibility and image over innocence
expose themselves to the full vigour of the law and
render themselves liable for the consequences that the
statute inexorably vests upon those who fail in their
statutory duty.
14. This Court must also dispel a dangerous
misconception that appears to have crept into the thinking of
some institutions that, since the punishment prescribed under
Section 21 of the POCSO Act may extend only to six months,
the offence is somehow inconsequential or that the statutory
obligation can be ignored with impunity. Such an understanding
is fundamentally flawed. The gravity of an offence is not
measured merely by the quantum of punishment prescribed but
by the sanctity of the duty that has been breached. Sections 19
and 21 of the POCSO Act are not ornamental provisions placed
in the statute book; they constitute the very backbone of the
legislative framework intended to ensure that offences against
children are brought to light without the slightest delay. The
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
long arm of these provisions extends to every individual who,
despite acquiring knowledge of a sexual offence against a child,
consciously chooses silence over disclosure. Those who fail to
report cannot seek refuge behind administrative procedure or
perceived triviality of the punishment.
15. In the case at hand, the material presently available
prima facie discloses the commission of the offence punishable
under Section 21 of the POCSO Act against the petitioners.
Whether the investigation would unveil additional offences or
exonerate them of any particular allegation is a matter that lies
entirely within the domain of investigation. At this nascent
stage, this Court would neither truncate the investigation nor
pronounce upon issues that are yet to crystallise. The
investigation must be permitted to take its lawful course
unhindered.
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:34154
CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026
HC-KAR
16. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition, being
devoid of merit, deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected.
Consequently, pending applications also stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16