Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 19 of POCSO Act starts with a “Non-Obstante Clause”, thus overriding the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, when it comes to report the offences under POCSO Act. Section 19 of POCSO Act https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm ) confers the right to any person who has apprehension that an offence under POCSO Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence has been committed shall report such offence under Section 19(1) of POCSO Act either to the Special Juvenile Police or to the Local Police and it is upon them to register an F.I.R immediately and follow the compliance as required under Section 19 of the Act. The Statute also stated that contravention of Section 19 of POCSO Act would invoke Section 21 of the POCSO Act for punishment.

7. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the averments made in the complaint does not show that the complainant had invoked Section 19 of POCSO Act. Since the first respondent had not chosen to invoke Section 19 of POCSO Act, the Special Court should have taken cognizance under Section 33(1) of POCSO Act, instead of forwarding the complaint to the Commissioner of Police. The Special Court ought to have conducted enquiry and pass orders on merits. The petitioner has not disclosed the identity of the child and her family members as alleged by the first respondent/complainant. Hence, the order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm ) passed by the Special Court is liable to be dismissed and consequently, F.I.R in Crime No.23 of 2024 on the file of the sixth respondent-Police is also liable to be quashed.

13. Though the reasons stated by the learned Special Judge, might not be correct, this Court by invoking Section 438 read with 445 of BNSS, in the interest of justice and also considering the nature of the offence in the alleged petition filed by the first respondent against the petitioner, the first respondent may not be in a position to establish the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm ) same. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by registering the case and investigation to be conducted by the jurisdictional police. It will reveal whether the petitioner had violated Section 19 of POCSO Act and also Section 23(iv) of POCSO Act. There is no abuse of process of law. The error committed by the learned Special Judge is mere irregularity, which cannot be treated as illegality. Considering the serious nature of the offence and the responsibility for the petitioner towards the society, this Court is not inclined to set aside the order passed by the Special Court and also to grant stay of investigation of the case registered against the petitioner.