Madras High Court: In a criminal original petition filed under Section of (‘BNSS’) requesting to quash the chargesheet of the accused , P. Velmurugan J., while noting that there was a prima facie allegation on the headmaster, refused to quash the charge sheet against him. Further, the Court directed the police to file a detailed report by 12-12-2024, outlining the actions taken against him. Specifically, the report should clarify whether the police have recommended the initiation of departmental proceedings against the accused to the Educational Department or proposed any other actions against the headmaster
Background:
The accused 3 was working as a Headmaster of the school in which the minor girl was studying. Accused 1 and accused 2 have been charged for the offence under POCSO Act for sexually abusing the girl. Though the accused 3 was not named in the FIR, subsequently, after investigation, his name was included in the chargesheet, and he has been arrayed as an accused for the offence under Section 21(2) of POCSO Act for not reporting the crime to the authorities concerned.
The State submitted that even at the time when the victim girl was studying in 8th Standard in the year 2018, accused 3 was working as a Headmaster and no oral or written complaint was received from the victim girl. After a period of 3 years, the complaint has been lodged in the year 2022. Further, there is a delay in filing the charge sheet and the same has not been explained.
Accused 3 submitted that the victim, while studying in the 8th standard in 2018, did not file any oral or written complaint against accused 3, who was serving as the Headmaster at the time. The delay in raising the complaint until 2022, a period of three years, has been highlighted as a significant factor, casting doubt on the credibility and immediacy of the allegations. Additionally, he has pointed out the delay in filing the charge sheet, which remains unexplained, further emphasizing concerns regarding the timely pursuit of justice.
Analysis And Decision
After perusing the decision referred to by the accused, the Court observed that the cited case is not applicable to the present case due to significant differences in the facts and circumstances. The Court emphasized that in cases under POCSO Act, each case must be considered on its own merits, as the unique details of each case play a crucial role in the judicial process. Therefore, the referred case cannot serve as a precedent or relevant comparison for the matter at hand.
The Court noted that though initially the headmaster was not shown as an accused in the FIR, the subsequent materials revealed that he was also involved in the crime of offence and therefore, he has been impleaded in this case as an accused for the offence under Section 21(2) of POCSO Act.
The Court remarked that “the headmaster is the guardian of the entire school. If any incident relating POSCO has taken place, then such must be intimated to the either the District Child Protection officer or the police”.
The Court noted that in this case, the Headmaster of the School at the time of occurrence, neither informed about the sexual assault committed by the accused persons to the authorities concerned nor taken any action against them
The Court noted that there was a prima facie allegation on the accused 3, hence the Court refused to quash the charge sheet against him.
The Court directed the police to file a detailed report by 12-12-2024, outlining the actions taken against accused 3. Specifically, the report should clarify whether the police have recommended the initiation of departmental proceedings against the accused to the Educational Department or proposed any other actions against the accused 3.
[Aathimoolam v State, Crl. O.P. No. 29194 of 2024, decided on 21-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Mr. P. Krishnamoorthy
For the respondent: Mr. S. Sugendran, Additional Public Prosecutor
The post appeared first on .