Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx vs State Of Kerala on 10 September, 2025
2025:KER:66327
O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA,
1947
OP(CRL.) NO. 667 OF 2024
ORDER DATED 16.02.2024 OF DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM IN CRL MP
NO.NIL OF 2024
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
SHRI.ATUL MATHEWS
SMT.GAYATHRI S.B.
RESPONDENT/STATE & ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
4 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
2025:KER:66327
O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 2
5 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
6 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
7 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
8 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
9 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
10 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
11 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
12 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
13 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
14 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
15 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
16 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
17 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
18 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
19 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
2025:KER:66327
O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 3
20 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
21 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
22 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
23 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
24 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
25 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
26 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
27 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
28 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
29 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
30 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2025, THE COURT ON 10.09.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66327
O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 4
JUDGMENT
An endorsement in the form of an order of the District Court, Kollam in the docket of Ext.P37 which the petitioner claims to be a complaint, is under challenge in this petition filed by the so called complainant/petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The aforesaid endorsement reads as follows:
"Complaint not maintainable before POCSO Court. Hence returned to be filed before proper Court."
3. As per the averments in this petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that a complaint, which he filed before the District and Sessions Court, Kollam, against the act of certain persons disclosing the identity of his child, a victim of POCSO Act crime, has been returned by the said Court, stating the reason that it is not maintainable before POCSO Court. Ironically, it appears from the contentions in this petition that the offender in the said POCSO Act crime is none other than the petitioner himself. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid details revealing the identity of the POCSO Act crime victim were disclosed by the Public Information Officer of Kadakkal Police Station in reply to an R.T.I Act query from the second 2025:KER:66327 O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 5 defendant in O.S No.334/2021 of Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara, a suit which the petitioner had instituted in connection with the disputes relating to a Trust managing the affairs of a U.P School. It is contended that the defendants in the aforesaid suit further made the details of the child public by producing that reply along with the written statement in the said suit. For the above reason, the petitioner sought the initiation of criminal prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') against those persons who revealed the identity of the POCSO Act crime victim.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 5. What exactly is the offence under the Act when the allegation is about disclosing the identity of the victim of a POCSO Act crime? This is the legal issue involved in this case. 6. Section 24 of the Act deals with the modalities to be followed while a police officer records the statement of a child. Sub Section (5) of Section 24 of the Act reads as follows:
2025:KER:66327 O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 6 "24. Recording of Statement of a Child.
(1) xxx (2) x xx (3) xxx (4) xxx (5) The Police Officer shall ensure that the identity of the child is protected from the public media, unless otherwise directed by the Special Court in the interest of the child."
7. Section 33 of the Act deals with the procedure and powers of the Special Court dealing with the trial of POCSO Act crime. Sub Section (7) of Section 33 of the Act reads as follows:
"33. Procedure and Powers of Special Court.
(1) xxx
(2) xxx
(3) xxx
(4) xxx
(5) xxx
(6) xxx
2025:KER:66327
O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 7
(7) The Special Court shall ensure that the identity of
the child is not disclosed at any time during the course of an investigation or trial."
8. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that the legislature in its wisdom has incorporated the aforesaid restrictions keeping in view of the absolute necessity to keep the identity and details of the victim of POCSO Act crime strictly confidential. 9. The penal provision relating to the disclosure of identity of a child is contained in Section 23 of the Act. The aforesaid provision reads as follows:
"23. Procedure for Media.
(1) No person shall make any report or present comments on any child from any form of media or studio or photographic facilities without having complete and authentic information, which may have the effect of lowering his reputation or infringing upon his privacy.
(2) No reports in any media shall disclose, the identity of a child including his name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood or any other particulars which may lead to disclosure of identity of the child: Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Special Court, competent to try the case under the Act, may permit such 2025:KER:66327 O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 8 disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the interest of the child.
(3) The publisher or owner of the media or studio or photographic facilities shall be jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions of his employee.
(4) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a period which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year or with fine or with both."
10. A reading of the aforesaid provision would reveal that it relates to the reports revealing the identity of a child from any media, studio or photographic facilities. But, that does not mean that the identity of a victim of POCSO Act crime could be disclosed in the public domain in any other forms of communication or official documents. The legal interdict against such disclosures is explicit from the tenor of Section 24(5) and Section 33(7) of the Act. The mere fact that the restrictions contained in Section 23 of the Act is confined to disclosures in 'media' does not mean that the purpose of legislation could be defeated by resorting to revelation of the identity and details of the victim of POCSO Act crimes through other means. An objective analysis of the ambit and purport of the relevant 2025:KER:66327 O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 9 provisions of the Act would make it clear that the disclosure of identity of the victim of such crime has been expressly proscribed by legislature, whether it be by way of revelation in media or otherwise. Thus, the interdict contained in Section 23 has to be taken in its general sense as applicable to all persons, and in all forms of communications, except otherwise permitted by the Special Court concerned.
11. If the term 'media' incorporated in Section 23 of the Act is taken as plural of the word 'medium', and meaning is attributed accordingly, the prohibition contained in the said provision would become applicable to all persons and all forms of revelation of identity of the child, except those which are permitted by the Special Court concerned. In Law, 'medium' refers to the means, method or format used for something such as communication or a legal process. Cambridge Dictionary gives the meaning of 'medium' as 'a method or way of expressing something'. The meaning of 'medium', as per Merriam Webster Dictionary is 'a means of effecting or conveying something'. The meaning of 'medium' as a countable noun given in Collins Dictionary, is 'a way or a means of expressing your ideas or of 2025:KER:66327 O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 10 communicating with people'. Taking cue from the aforesaid meaning of 'medium', the legislative intent in incorporating the word 'media' in Section 23 of the Act would definitely be as the plural of 'medium', the meaning of which as stated above would fulfil the object of the legislation.
12. The interpretation of a statute shall be in such a way as to give effect to its objective, and not to defeat the overwhelming purport for which the enactment is brought to force. When viewed in the above perspective, it has to be taken that the proscription contained in Section 23 of the Act is applicable to all sources of disclosure of the identity of the child. Since Section 23(4) of the Act makes the contravention of Sub Section (1) or (2) offence under the Act, a Special Court constituted under Section 28 of the Act is empowered to proceed with the trial of the said offence, even if it relates to the disclosure of identity of child by way of any means of communication, whether it be official or otherwise, without the permission of the Special Court. The legal issue involved in this matter is answered accordingly.
2025:KER:66327
O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 11
13. Coming to the factual aspects relating to the return of Ext.P37, it has to be stated that the said document could hardly be considered as a complaint as envisaged under Section 2(1)(h) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C). As per the definition of complaint under the above provisions, it means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the Sanhita (Code) that some person, whether known or unknown has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. A reading of Ext.P37, which runs into 36 pages and 43 paragraphs, would reveal that the predominant contentions thereunder are about the civil dispute of the petitioner with his relatives, and the facts of the case which he instituted before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara. In addition to that, it is very difficult to decipher what exactly are the allegations made, and the precise role of the persons against whom action is sought to be taken, though it is stuffed with reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and several High Courts in various Criminal Appeals, Writ Petitions etc. As many as 29 persons, including Advocates, Teachers and Police Officers are arraigned as 2025:KER:66327 O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 12 respondents in Ext.P37 without making it clear as to the nature of the criminal liability attributed against each of them. The concluding portion of Ext.P37 reads as follows:
"Therefore, it is prayed that the respondents may be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness and correctness of the documents under Section 294(1) of Cr.P.C, the particulars of the same is included in the list annexed hereunder and in case the respondents did not dispute the genuineness of the documents, the contents of the same may be read in evidence and renter justice in the will and streanth of the law abided in our country which guaranteed by the Article 14 and 15(1) of the Indian Constitution by considering the records produced."
14. Having regard to the above way in which Ext.P37 is concluded, there is absolutely no wonder if the court below got confused about the purport of Ext.P37.
15. It is also pertinent to note that, for reasons best known to the petitioner alone, he has affixed his designation seal as the General Secretary of a political party, and also the official seal of the State Committee of that party, in all pages of Ext.P37, as if he has instituted Ext.P37 in a representative capacity representing that political party.
2025:KER:66327 O.P (Crl).No.667/2024 13
16. Having regard to the gross inadequacies and irregularities noted above, the court below cannot be found to be at fault for returning Ext.P37 vide Ext.P38 order in the form of an endorsement in the docket of that document. Being a grossly ill drafted document, Ext.P37 cannot be treated as a complaint for the purpose of initiating further proceedings on the basis of it. Needless to say, the challenge against Ext.P38 order, is devoid of merit.
The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner from submitting a properly drafted complaint before the competent court.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr