Colonial Style Policing Has No Place In A Constitutional Democracy | Allahabad High Court Quashes POCSO Proceedings Citing Travesty Of Justice And Illegal Property Attachment
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar, quashed the proceedings initiated under Sections 363, 366, 368 of the IPC read with Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act against multiple accused persons, citing lack of substantive evidence and violation of procedural safeguards. The Court further declared that the property attachment orders issued by the trial court and executed by the local police were not only unsustainable in law but had been implemented in a coercive and arbitrary manner. In delivering its judgment, the Court issued extensive directions to the police and judiciary aimed at reinforcing procedural compliance and protecting individual rights. A departmental inquiry against investigating officers and judicial sensitization across the state were also ordered.
The case originated from an FIR lodged at P.S. Chaubepur, District Varanasi, alleging the abduction of a minor girl by a young man. The complainant accused the boy, along with several members of his family, of assisting in the abduction and hiding the victim. The charges were brought under Sections 363, 366, and 368 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act.
Following the FIR, a charge sheet was filed implicating multiple individuals, including family members of the primary accused. Concurrently, attachment proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC were initiated against the absconding main accused. The police, without verifying ownership, seized all movable and immovable property located at the family residence.
An application seeking the release of attached household items was filed by one of the accused family members. Though the court released a vehicle, it rejected requests concerning other goods. A second application was withdrawn without adjudication. Subsequently, a third application for the release of attached property was filed, reiterating that none of the goods seized belonged to the absconding accused, and the household items were lawfully possessed by other family members. The application was again rejected by the Special POCSO Court.
The applicant then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking the quashing of the proceedings on the grounds that there was no evidence linking the family members to the alleged offence, and that the police had acted arbitrarily and in violation of procedural requirements while attaching family property.
The police and prosecution claimed they had sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings and that the attachment had been carried out in accordance with judicial orders. However, during the High Court hearing, it emerged that the declaration of the main accused as a proclaimed offender had not been properly substantiated with evidence or judicial satisfaction. Furthermore, neither the ownership of the seized goods had been verified nor had the trial court recorded the necessary satisfaction as required under Section 83 CrPC or the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The High Court examined the seizure memo, the procedural record of the proclamation and attachment, and the statements recorded during the investigation. It concluded that the family had been wrongfully dragged into proceedings, and that the trial court had failed to apply its judicial mind in granting and executing the attachment order.
The court further noted that the girl and the alleged abductor were now living together as a married couple and had been blessed with a child, undermining the premise of continued criminal proceedings under POCSO and IPC.
The Court expressed deep concern regarding both police and judicial conduct. It recorded:
“Had the police acted responsibly and conducted a free, fair, and unbiased investigation in a professional manner, the two families would not have endured the trauma they suffered.”
“The entire family of the young boy has been virtually left to starve on the streets due to the actions of the police, who failed to consider the consequences of their decisions.”
The Court described the actions of the investigating officers as: “Reminiscent of the old colonial style of policing, carried out at the dictates of their masters—the rulers of India, the British—at the cost of the rule of law and human values.”
On the issue of property attachment, the Court noted: “The procedure adopted by the police, particularly in rural areas, to enforce attachment orders under Section 83 Cr.P.C. is barbaric and devoid of legal propriety.”
“They demolish mud or brick structures, destroy huts made of chaff or mud, and seize all household belongings, both movable and immovable, without verifying ownership or purchase details.”
The Court found judicial complicity in these actions: “The trial court failed to adhere to statutory provisions and legal requirements, particularly in declaring the co-accused a proclaimed offender, issuing the attachment order, and rejecting the application for the release of goods.”
It warned against judicial lethargy: “Some judges resort to applying the rule of exception as a blanket approach, often to conceal a lack of confidence, efficiency, or a shallow understanding of the law.”
Citing a need for broader reform, the Court observed: “The judiciary and law enforcement agencies must uphold the rule of law, protect individual rights, and restore public confidence in the justice system.”
The Court further addressed the misapplication of Sections 82 and 83 CrPC (now Sections 84 and 85 BNSS):
“Section 82 Cr.P.C. is not to penalize an absconding person but to secure their presence.”
“Section 83 Cr.P.C. requires a court to be satisfied, based on affidavit or otherwise, that the property in question belongs to the absconding accused before ordering its attachment.”
In the present case, the Court found no such satisfaction recorded: “Neither was the court satisfied with the requirements of Section 83 Cr.P.C., nor did the police verify the ownership of the seized goods.”
The Court issued a series of directions to both the Police and the judiciary:
“Proceedings against the applicant and other accused persons stand quashed.”
“Continuing the legal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose and would amount to a futile exercise.”
On the issue of goods release, the Court recorded: “As the order dated 11.11.2024 has already been complied with and the applicant has received the goods, no fresh order is required for release.”
However, to prevent similar procedural abuse, the Court ordered systemic reforms: “The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police (D.G.P.), Uttar Pradesh, who shall, in turn, forward the order to the Police In-Charge of all Districts.”
“All Police In-Charges shall ensure that a copy of this order is circulated to all Station House Officers (S.H.O.s) for strict compliance, reference, and record.”
The Court also called for Police accountability:
“A departmental inquiry shall be initiated against all police officers involved in the investigation of the present case up until the intervention by this Court.”
“The inquiry shall be concluded in a time-bound manner.”
Directions were also issued to the judiciary:
“All District Judges shall immediately convene a meeting with all judges within their respective judgeships to ensure compliance with this order in letter and spirit.”
“The minutes of the meeting shall be recorded and maintained for future reference and record.”
Finally, the Court mandated compliance reporting: “The learned District Judges and the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, are directed to file their respective compliance reports within four weeks.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri R.P. Rajan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Vibhav Anand, A.G.A., Shri Shesh Nath Singh Yadav, Advocate
Case Title: XXX v State of U.P. and Another
Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:192918
Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 25039 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar
[Read/Download order]
