Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash 2016 FIR Against Former DCW Chief Swati Maliwal For 'Naming' 14-Yr-Old Rape Victim

Post By 24law
February 20, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP and former Chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW), Swati Maliwal, seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against her in 2016 for allegedly disclosing the identity of a 14-year-old rape survivor.

Court’s Observations

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while delivering the judgment, observed, “From the bare perusal of this Section, it is evident that if any Newspaper, Magazine, News-Sheet or Audio-Visual Media or other forms of communication disclose the name, address or school or any particulars which may lead to the identification of the child in conflict with law or child in need of care and protection, would be an offence punishable with the term that may extend to six months or fine which may extend to two lakhs in the present case.” Consequently, the court ruled that there was no merit in Maliwal’s plea and refused to quash the FIR, stating, “Therefore, there is no ground for quashing of FIR No. 356/2016 and the proceedings consequent thereto.”

Background of the Case

The case stems from an FIR filed by a 14-year-old girl and her mother, alleging kidnapping, confinement, and sexual assault. The girl later retracted her allegations in a statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, which led to the accused obtaining bail on January 12, 2016. However, on January 25, 2016, the survivor wrote to the Delhi Chief Minister claiming coercion in retracting her statement. No action was taken by the authorities in response. On May 15, 2016, a day before her scheduled appearance in court, the girl went missing. Her mother reported threats from the accused, leading to the registration of a missing person report and an FIR on May 19, 2016. The police recovered her on May 26, 2016, but she refused medical examination and was placed in a Children’s Home.

On May 27, 2016, she recorded another Section 164 CrPC statement denying all allegations but later, in a dying declaration to DCW coordinators, alleged police coercion. Due to deteriorating health, she was sent home on May 31, 2016. Her father took her to LNJP Hospital, where police initially refused medical examination. On June 30, 2016, the hospital noted her history of sexual assault and symptoms of corrosive poisoning.

Role of Swati Maliwal and FIR Against Her

Amid mounting concerns, Swati Maliwal sought an independent SIT probe and victim compensation on August 3, 2016. During this period, an FIR was lodged against her under Section 74 and 86 of the Juvenile Justice Act for allegedly revealing the victim’s identity.

The court noted, “It is not under challenge that a Notice was issued to the SHO which got published on the WhatsApp Group of DCW by Sh. Bhupender Singh, Public Relations Officer, which later got it circulated to the News Channels wherein the name of the prosecutrix was disclosed. Prima facie, offence under Section 74 read with Section 86 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is clearly disclosed.” Maliwal defended her actions, asserting that they were carried out in good faith under the statutory obligations of DCW. However, the court maintained that whether her defense holds merit is a matter of trial, stating, “Insofar as the Petitioner’s claim that she has protection under Section 100 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for her actions done in good faith is concerned, it is her defence which is required to be proved in accordance with law at the appropriate stage.”

Court’s Final Decision

The court, after analyzing the submissions and materials before it , ruled that Maliwal’s petition to quash the FIR was not maintainable and upheld the prosecution’s case. It further directed that the parents of the victim may claim compensation under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018. With this decision, the legal proceedings against Swati Maliwal will continue, with the charges under Sections 74 and 86 of the Juvenile Justice Act remaining intact. The matter will now proceed to trial, where Maliwal will have to establish her defense.