Gujarat High Court | ‘Absolutely Irresponsible’: FIR Against Advocate For Disclosing POCSO Victim’s Identity To Media Cannot Be Quashed
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai refused to quash an FIR against a woman advocate accused of revealing the identity of a minor victim under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, by giving a media bite. The Court recorded that the advocate had acted “absolutely irresponsibly as a professional as well as a human” by disclosing the name of the child and involving her in media interactions. Observing that the FIR under the POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act disclosed cognizable offences, the Bench directed that investigation must continue.
The petitioner, an advocate by profession, approached the High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered on 30 July 2025. The FIR alleged that the petitioner disclosed the name of a minor victim of an offence under the POCSO Act by giving a media bite to news channels and further instigated the victim herself to give a media statement, which was later circulated on social media.
According to the FIR, the complainant, father of the minor victim, came to know about the disclosure while travelling when he saw a video clip in which the petitioner, along with his wife and daughter, was giving a media statement in a car. The complainant alleged that the petitioner disclosed the victim’s name during this statement and also persuaded the minor to appear in the video, resulting in the disclosure of her identity.
The FIR was lodged under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act, which prescribes punishment for contravention of prohibitions on reporting and publication, and under Section 74(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, which prohibits disclosure of identity of children in conflict with law or in need of care and protection. The offences carry punishments ranging up to one year of imprisonment or fine.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act applies only to media personnel and cannot be invoked against an advocate. It was argued that the offence was non-cognizable, making the registration of the FIR impermissible. It was further submitted that the act was an inadvertent mistake and the petitioner, who had been practicing for only six years, should be pardoned. Mr. Ansari contended that responsibility to blur the victim’s identity lay with the media houses, not the petitioner.
The counsel also relied on an affidavit purportedly filed by the mother of the victim stating that the interview was given voluntarily. However, the High Court recorded that the petitioner failed to produce a certified copy of this affidavit. Further, the petitioner argued mala fide on the part of the complainant father, who allegedly sided with the accused in the original POCSO case, as against the mother who supported the victim and the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval, appearing for the State, opposed the petition. He submitted that being an advocate, and particularly a lady advocate, the petitioner was expected to protect the dignity and privacy of a minor victim. Instead, she acted irresponsibly for publicity, disclosed the victim’s identity, and compelled the minor to give a media statement. He argued that investigation was ongoing, and therefore no relief should be granted at this stage. He further pointed to an order of the Special POCSO Court dated 29 July 2025, which held that offences under the POCSO Act are cognizable, thereby negating the petitioner’s argument of non-cognizability.
The Court noted: “The petitioner, an advocate by profession, after behaving absolutely irresponsibly as a professional as well as a human, has approached this Court seeking quashing of an FIR… when it was registered against the conduct of the advocate herself in respect of disclosing the name of a victim by giving a media bite.”
The Court stated that the applicant, being a lady advocate, was expected to safeguard the dignity, reputation, and privacy of a minor victim. Instead, “she, despite being a woman, prima facie appears to have placed her professional interests and publicity above and ahead of the interest of the minor victim.”
The Bench noted that the petitioner admitted that she was present when the victim gave a media statement and admitted to disclosing the victim’s name, though she termed it an inadvertent mistake. The Court rejected the plea for pardon, observing: “The question is not about pardoning the mistake of the present applicant. The question is, when a professional, merely to extract publicity, crosses the line drawn by law, whether such an act can be considered as an inadvertent mistake or not.”
The Court referred to the order dated 29 July 2025 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge and Special POCSO Court, which had stated that offences under Section 23 of the POCSO Act are cognizable. That order, the High Court noted, had not been challenged by the petitioner. The Court observed: “I do not see any reason to show disagreement in respect of the said order, which is not even under challenge before this Court, and when the investigation has taken place pursuant to the aforesaid order.”
The Court further held: “Whether the aforesaid act was done with a bona fide intention, with a malafide intention, with a view to commit an offence, or it was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the present applicant, is a subject matter of investigation or trial as the stage may be, but a prima facie reading of the FIR constitutes an offence.”
Justice Desai directed: “Considering the above observations, as well as the fact that the registration of the FIR and a bare reading of the same prima facie disclose an offence, merely because the present applicant is an advocate, the investigation in respect of the offence in question cannot be stayed. Accordingly, the present petition is required to be dismissed, and the same is dismissed.”
The Court thereby upheld the continuation of investigation against the petitioner under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aftabhusen Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ronak Raval, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: XXX Vs State of Gujarat $ Anr
Neutral Citation: 2025: GUJHC:54132
Case Number: R/CR.MA/18068/2025
Bench: Justice Nirzar S. Desai
