By Pradyumna Satish 

The petitioner, former Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee (Thrissur), served in that capacity from 2009 to 2019. He has been implicated as accused No. 2 in Crime No. 1130/2019 (Ollur Police Station) and seeks to quash proceedings in S.C. No. 811/2020, pending before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thrissur. 

The charges against the petitioner include offences under Sections 450, 354(A), 376(2)(l), 376(2)(i), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, he is charged under Sections 4, 3(b), 6, 5(k), 12 read with Section 11(iii), and Section 21 read with Section 19(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The primary allegation against the petitioner is his failure to report a 2014 incident of sexual abuse, which had been brought to his attention, to the police. This alleged inaction constitutes a violation under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. 

The matter came to light during the investigation of Crime No. 1028/2019, where the victim, who had turned 19 at the time of the second crime, was sexually abused by an auto driver. Provisions of the POCSO Act were not invoked in that case due to the victim’s age. The petitioner’s alleged omission pertains to the earlier incident reported to him in 2014. 

The Court ordered that there is sufficient compliance by the petitioner with respect to his reporting obligations. Under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, the mandate to report offences applies to all individuals in their private capacity and is not tied to official duties. 

In this case, the petitioner, as Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) from 2009 to 2019, received a letter from Child Line about the victim, mentioning abuse in general terms without specifics. He reported the matter to the police the next day and endorsed the file with a note: “directed to police”. 

The charge against the petitioner was non-reporting under Section 19 of the POCSO Act. However, his actions demonstrated compliance with the mandate. The materials presented, including his endorsement and letter, confirmed he informed the police. The prosecution failed to refute these materials. Relying on its power, under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner. 

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in this case clarified that no prior sanction is required to prosecute a public servant for failing to report an offence under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. This is because the obligation to report offences under Section 19 applies to all individuals in their private capacity and is not linked to their official duties or roles as public servants. 

Case Title: George P.O. v. State of Kerala 

Citation: CRL. MC No. 5970/2021 

Click here to Read/Download the Judgement.