Safiya Malik

The Single Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh of the Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench directed quashing of proceedings initiated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, against two school officials. The Court held that their conduct following receipt of information about the incident did not amount to an intentional failure to report, and that continuing proceedings against them would constitute an abuse of process. It set aside the proceedings pending before the Special Judge under the POCSO Act and quashed the associated First Information Report registered at Nandurbar City Police Station.

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR dated 28 August 2024 and the proceedings in Special Case No. 33 of 2024. The FIR was registered under Sections 11(3), 12, 16, 17, and 21(2) of the POCSO Act, Section 75(1)(iii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act. The allegations stemmed from an incident that occurred on 27 August 2024 at a school where the daughter of respondent No. 2 was studying.

Also Read: “Ph.D. Is an Essential Qualification Prescribed by AICTE”: Supreme Court Denies Higher Pay and Redesignation to Non-Ph.D. Teachers Appointed After 2000

The girl, a fifth standard student, had informed her mother upon returning home that she had been shown inappropriate videos by a sweeper employed at the school. According to the FIR, the incident began when the girl was sent to check for a teacher in the library. Upon returning, the sweeper gave her his phone, asked her to enable internet connectivity, and allegedly showed her objectionable content. After she left, the girl narrated the incident to her mother. That evening, the mother informed a neighbour who conveyed the information to the school principal and the girl's class teacher.

The FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC indicated that the school principal and a trustee of the managing trust were informed the same evening. The next morning, the girl and her parents, along with some relatives, met with the petitioners, who reviewed CCTV footage and disclosed the identity of the sweeper. The petitioners allegedly advised caution about filing an FIR due to potential media coverage. The family chose to proceed with the police complaint regardless.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners failed to fulfil their duty under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act by not promptly reporting the offence to the police. Statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC by the mother, her husband, and other relatives suggested that the petitioners attempted to dissuade them from filing the complaint.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they had not obstructed the family from reporting the incident, and that the CCTV footage was preserved and shared. The prosecution’s claim was primarily based on statements alleging a delay in response. It was argued that criminal liability under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act required proof of intentional omission, which was absent in the present case.

The Court examined the FIR, charge sheet, and witness statements. It noted that while the information was conveyed to the petitioners in the evening, the parents visited their home the next morning and decided to lodge the complaint. The Court observed: "It was one of the opinion or point that was put before the informant and the relatives by the petitioners, but they themselves say that they had not listened to what was told by the petitioners to them."

The Court found that the FIR did not state the petitioners restrained the informant from lodging the complaint. It further observed: "Every failure to report the incident will not attract the criminal liability. The intention is important." It recorded that the CCTV footage had not been deleted and was shown to the family: "The subsequent conduct, after receipt of the information, is also required to be considered."

The Court stated: "We are of the opinion that unless the school authority would have ensured the element of truth in the allegations, there cannot be duty on the school authorities to lodge the report." It noted that the girl had not informed any teacher during school hours and only shared the incident with her mother after returning home.

Also Read: Kerala HC Quashes FIR, Abusive Language in Private Call Not a 'Public Act'; Cognizable Offence Can't Be Added to Bypass Sec 155(2) CrPC Sanction

It concluded that requiring the petitioners to face trial would be an abuse of process and held that the situation fell within the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.

The Court allowed the petition and issued the following order: "The proceedings in Special Case No.33 of 2024 pending before the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act, Nandurbar, for the offence punishable under Sections 11(3), 12, 16, 17 and 21(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 75(1)(iii) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, arising out of the First Information Report vide Crime No. 542 of 2024, dated 28th August 2024, registered with Nandurbar City Police Station, Nandurbar, stands quashed and set aside as against petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. P.R. Bharaswadkar, Assistant Public Prosecutor; Mr. Suniket A. Kulkarni, Advocate

Case Title: XXX v The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:9913-DB
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No.1686 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh

[Read/Download order]