It is not something that can be just glossed over as any other ordinary judgment when none other than the Punjab and Haryana High Court which is one of the most prestigious High Courts in India with an impeccable track record in a most progressive, pertinent, pragmatic and path breaking judgment titled Surjeet Khanna vs State of Haryana and Another in CRM-M-36154-2023 and CRM-M-44425-2023 (O&M) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC: 023004 and 2024:PHHC: 023004 that was initially reserved on 6.02.2024 and as we saw then finally pronounced on 19.02.2024 minces just no words absolutely to hold unequivocally that it is mandatory for a parent to inform about the offence against child to the police under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). We need to definitely note here that the Chandigarh High Court observed so in a batch of two petitions that had been filed by a School Principal and the mother of the deceased child respectively. Ultimately, we see that the two petitions were so very rightly dismissed by the Chandigarh High Court. No denying it.
At the very outset, this learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Deepak Gupta sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, "This order shall dispose of two petitions titled above, as both of them have arisen out of the same proceedings, pending in the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Faridabad [Special Court constituted to dispose of the matters pertaining to the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012] (for short ‘the POCSO Act’)."
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, "2.1 The matter pertains to a very unfortunate incident. ‘A’, a minor child aged about 16 years, student of 10th class in Delhi Public School, Greater Faridabad, Sector 81, Faridabad committed suicide on 24.02.2022, leaving behind a suicide note blaming the school authorities for taking the extreme step. ‘Axx’ (Petitioner in CRM-M-44425-2023 & Respondent No.2 in CRM-M-36154-2023) is the unfortunate mother of the deceased child; whereas, Smt. Surjeet Khanna (Petitioner in CRM-M36154-2023 and Respondent No.2 in CRM-M-44425-2023) is the Principal of the aforementioned School.
2.2 The mother of the child i.e. Axx lodged FIR No. 64 dated 25.02.2022 at Police Station, BPTP, District Faridabad, under Section 306 IPC besides Sections 6, 8, 18 & 21 of the POCSO Act. It was alleged by the mother that around one year prior to the incident of suicide, boys in the school used to tease the deceased child by calling him gay and used to misbehave with him. A complaint was made to the school management, but no action was taken, due to which the child ‘A’ was suffering from depression. Further, on 23.02.2022, the child had to write a science examination, but since he was suffering from dyslexia, he was unable to solve numerical questions. When he sought help from the Head Mistress Mamta Gupta, she started scolding him, due to which the child was very depressed and ultimately, committed suicide on 24.02.2022, leaving behind a suicide note. The mother ‘Axx’ prayed for taking action against the Delhi Public School management. FIR was accordingly lodged.
2.3 The Principal of the school i.e. Mrs. Surjeet Khanna, approached this court and prayed for quashing of the FIR in question by filing CRM-M-4079 of 2023, but the same was dismissed on 14.07.2023.
2.4 On 18.07.2023 i.e. four days after the dismissal of the above quashing petition, the matter was fixed before the Special Court for charge consideration. On that day, the Principal of the School i.e., Mrs. Surjeet Khanna moved an application (Annexure P3) for taking cognizance against ‘Axx’ i.e. mother of the deceased child under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. It was contended that the applicant i.e. the Principal was made an accused under Section 21 of the POCSO Act only on the ground that she had failed to report the commission of the offence to the Police, despite the fact that an email had been sent to her on 23.09.2021 by the mother of the deceased child. The applicant submitted that much prior to bringing to the notice of the school management, mother ‘Axx’ herself was aware about the commission of offences under the POCSO Act against the child and hence, she is equally responsible for not reporting the matter to the police, as required under Section 19 of the POCSO Act punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. Thus, it was prayed that the mother ‘Axx’ be also summoned as an accused to face trial under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. The accused Principal also referred to the various emails right from 11.07.2018 to 18.12.2021 showing the communication between the complainant i.e. mother ‘Axx’ of the child and the school authorities.
2.5 On receiving the aforesaid application on 18.07.2023 (Annexure P3), Ld. Special Court, on the same day, passed the order which I am not elaborating for paucity of space. The key point is that, "By way of the present application, the accused wants that the complainant herself, who is the mother of the victim be tried as an accused. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant/proposed accused has a right to be heard. Even otherwise under Section 40 of the POCSO Act the family of the victim is entitled to legal counsel of their choice for any offence under this Act. Both the parties feel aggrieved by the aforesaid order and have approached this Court by filing the present two petitions.
2.6 The mother ‘Axx’ of the child has filed CRM-M-44425-2023 praying to quash the application itself, as moved by the Principal on 18.07.2023 for summing of the Petitioner-Axx; whereas, the Principal of the school i.e. Mrs. Surjeet Khanna has filed CRM-M-36154-2023 to quash the order dated 18.07.2023, whereby notice has been issued to the proposed accused i.e. mother ‘Axx’."
Most significantly, the Bench then mandates in para 8 postulating succinctly that, "As is evident from the abovesaid provisions, any person, having apprehension that an offence under this Act is likely to be committed; or has knowledge that such an offence has been committed, is obliged to inform about the said offence either to Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. The use of the word ‘shall’ in Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act makes the intention of the legislature quite clear that it is mandatory for any person having knowledge of the offence to inform the Special Juvenile Police Unit [SJPU] or the local police. It is irrespective of the fact as to whether the concerned person having knowledge of the offence is part of some institution or the parent of the child or a friend etc. Section 21 of the POCSO Act provides punishment for failure to report or record a case."
Do note, the Bench notes in para 9 that, "In this case, the email dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure R-2/7 in CRM-M-44425 of 2023), on which the mother-Axx has relied so as to contend that she had informed the school authorities about the bullying/ sexual harassment etc. of the deceased child, would make it clear that the mother-Axx had knowledge about the commission of offences covered under POCSO Act, much prior to when the information was given to the school authorities. As such, prima facie, the mother was mandatorily required to inform the local police or the SJPU about the same as per Section 19 of the POCSO Act."
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 10 that, "The contention of ld. senior counsel for the mother-Axx to the effect that the mother performed her duty by informing the school authorities by way of email dated 23.9.2021 as per the Child Protection Policy of School, does not appear to contain merit at this stage, having regard to the fact that statutory provision would override and will have precedence over the guidelines provided under the Child Protection Policy of School. In these circumstances, the petition moved by the mother-‘Axx’ so as to quash the application itself, does not contain merit."
In addition, the Bench points out in para 11 that, "Besides the above, the petition moved by the mother is clearly premature, having regard to the fact that no order on the application moved by accused-Principal Surjeet Khanna on 18.07.2023 has been passed by ld. Special Judge so far."
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 28 that, "This Court does not find merit in the aforesaid contention. Every case has its own facts and circumstances, which may compel the Court concerned to adopt a procedure, not barred by law, as per the facts and circumstances. No doubt, it is true that Section 33 of the POCSO Act or Section 193 CrPC do not provide for serving a notice to the proposed accused, but at the same time, there is no such bar to serve a notice in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Usually, a Court is not required to serve any such notice, but in the present case, the proposed accused i.e., mother Axx is the complainant of the FIR. She is also the victim, being the mother of deceased child. As is evident from the impugned order dated 18.07.2023 of the Special Court, the proposed accused i.e. mother-Axx, in her capacity as complainant of the FIR/victim was present in the Court along with her counsel at the time when application was moved."
Finally, the Bench concludes by holding in para 29 that, "In the above facts and circumstances, if the Special Court was of the view that the mother being the victim of the case, should be heard before deciding the application, this Court does not find it to be an illegality or irregularity. As has already been noticed that so far, no decision has been taken by the Court concerned on the application and only the notice of the application was served upon the proposed accused i.e. the mother ‘Axx’ - complainant of the FIR. The Court still has to decide the application by applying its judicious mind in accordance with law. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the petition CRM-M-36154-2023 filed by the principal Mrs. Surjeet Khanna. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the other connected case."
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has very rightly held that it is mandatory for a parent to inform about the POCSO offence against the child most promptly to the police. This clearly implies that parents are bound to promptly inform the police whenever they come across a POCSO offence having been committed against a child to the police. No denying or disputing it!
