The Kerala High Court has quashed a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against Jibin Joseph K.A., Additional Public Prosecutor and Additional Government Pleader, at the Special Court for the trial of POCSO cases, Kavaratti, on the basis of a complaint by a counsel for an accused in another POCSO case.
Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the order recently while allowing a petition filed by the prosecutor challenging the order of the Kozhikode Sessions Court, which was in charge of the Kavaratti Sessions Court, directing the police to register a crime under the POCSO Act. The sessions court gave the directive on a complaint filed by C.N. Noorul Hidaya, counsel for the accused in a pending POCSO case before the court.
The allegation against the petitioner was that he had frequently contacted the victim staying in the Working Women’s Hostel, Kavaratti, over the phone and that he had a role in the missing of the victim girl from the hostel. The police later traced the victim and brought her back to the hostel. The action of the petitioner amounts to an offence punishable under Section 11(iv) of the POCSO Act, the lawyer for the accused alleged in her private complaint.
The petitioner contended that the case had been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak personal vengeance on the petitioner and the lower court had mechanically forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code without applying its mind.
The court pointed out that the Kavarathi police had factually verified the phone calls of the victims as well as the petitioner and found that there were absolutely no phone calls made between the victim and the petitioner. Besides, the victim had clearly stated that she was never contacted by the petitioner. The report of the police said that the security lapse at Working Women’s Hostel, Kavaratti, was the main reason for the missing of the victim. The sessions court’s order would be a sheer abuse of the process of law, the court added.
The court also pointed out that the law was well settled that before directing the police to investigate a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the magistrate/court should form an opinion that the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence. When the allegation made in the complaint did not disclose a cognisable offence, the magistrate/court had no jurisdiction to order a police investigation under the section.
