Disputed factual pleas regarding POCSO Section 21 liability cannot be decided in quashing proceedings.

The petitioner, the Principal of Saint Xavier School, Bilaspur, sought quashing of Charge-sheet No. 347/2026 arising from FIR No. 402/2026 registered at Police Station Sirgitti for offences under Sections 137(2), 34(2)(m), 60, 351(3) and 35(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4, 6, 17 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”)

The prosecution alleged that a 15-year-old student was subjected to sexual intercourse on 14 December 2025 and subsequently disclosed the incident to the petitioner and two other teachers, who allegedly took no action.

The petitioner contended that the principal accused, Rahul Bangaru, had resigned from the school on 9 July 2025 and was therefore no longer under her administrative control or supervision when the alleged incident occurred.

She further denied that the victim had informed her of the incident and asserted that the occurrence took place outside the school premises.

The State opposed quashing, submitting that these matters involved disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication at trial.

Whether the FIR, charge-sheet, and consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner ought to be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly on the ground that Section 21 of the POCSO Act was not attracted?

Whether the petitioner’s contentions regarding the resignation of the principal accused, the absence of administrative control, and the alleged non-disclosure by the victim could be determined in a petition for quashing or were matters for trial?

Whether the petitioner could seek exemption from personal appearance for the duration of the proceedings?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

It considered Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which concerns failure to report or record an offence, in the context of the petitioner’s alleged knowledge of the incident and her position as school Principal.

The Court held that factual disputes concerning the resignation of the principal accused, the petitioner’s control or supervision, and whether the victim informed the petitioner could not ordinarily be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS and were matters for trial on the basis of evidence.

For personal appearance, the Court referred to Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 228 of the BNSS, under which the trial Court may consider an application for exemption in accordance with law.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s contention that Rahul Bangaru had resigned before the alleged occurrence, and was consequently no longer under her control or supervision, might bear on the applicability of Section 21 of the POCSO Act.

However, the Court treated this as a defence dependent upon proof of the resignation, the nature of the petitioner’s authority, and the relevant circumstances.

Similarly, the allegation that the victim had informed the petitioner while visiting the school to collect her transfer certificate was disputed and could not be conclusively resolved on the basis of the material before the Court at the quashing stage.

Since these issues required appreciation of evidence and did not demonstrate a clear case of abuse of process, the Court declined to interfere under Section 528 BNSS.

The petitioner was granted liberty to raise, before the trial Court, all pleas including the alleged prior resignation of the principal accused and the non-applicability of Section 21 of the POCSO Act.

The Court further directed that, if the petitioner sought exemption from personal appearance throughout the proceedings, she could file an appropriate application under Section 205 CrPC, corresponding to Section 228 BNSS, which the trial Court would consider in accordance with law.