In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the plea to quash POCSO proceedings. The court rejected the argument that the offence is non-cognizable, holding that it is cognizable and non-bailable as it can attract imprisonment of up to seven years.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 180 OF 2022
Between:
D. Bhasker, S/o Bajaranna, Aged.47 years, Occ. Government Teacher, R/o H.No.23-95,Vidyanaggr Colony, leeja Village and tvlandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District
AND
...PETIT|ONERyACCUSED
SFBXfl =ri"+,litoMpLArNANrs
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated rn the lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in SC (pOCSO) No.305 of 2020 on the file of lll Addl District and Sessions Court FTC at Gadwat (l Addl Sessions Judge Court at lr,4ahabu bnagar) .
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in SC (POCSO) No.305 of 2020 on the file of lll Addl District and Sessions Court FTC at Gadwal (l Addl Sessions Judge Court at Mahabubnagar).
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perustng the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VIJAy KUMAR PANUGANTI, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additionat public Prosecutor (TG) Sri S. SUDERSHAN, on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2 & 3.
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Petition No.1 8O of2O22
ORDER:
I
2
is that Section 11 read with Section L2 of the act of 2012 is punishable with imprisonment of a term which may extend to three years and fine, as such, in accordance with part II of First Schedule of Code of Criminal procedure, the offence is non-cognizable. As seen from the charge sheet, no where it is mentioned that the concerned Magistrate has accorded permission to investigate, for which reason, taking cognizance of offence is bad in law. In support of his contention, he reiied upon the judgment of Hon'bre supreme court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [L992 Supp.(If SCC 33SJ, and drew attention to guideline Jl1o.4, wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that when the allegations constitute only non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by the police officer, without an order of Magistrate as required under Section 155 (2) of Cr.p.C. In the present case, since, there is no such permission, which was accorded bv the Magistrate, charge sheet has to be quashed. 4. For the sake of convenience, part II of First Schedule of
Code of Criminal procedure is extracted hereunder:
| Offen punishment rmprrsonmcnt nsonmen If tm |
ce u,ithdeattr, forlife,or tfor more |
or Non-co izabLe Cognizable Cognizable |
Bailable or Non-Bailable Non-bailable |
By what triable Court Session |
Court of |
|---|
J
| than7years |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| If punishablewith imprisonmentfor3years andupwardsbutnotmore |
Ditto | Ditto | Magistrateof the firstClass |
| than7 |
|||
| If punishablewith |
Non-cogrrizabte | Bailable | Any |
| imprisonmentforlessthan 3 orwithfine onl |
Magistrate |
for less than three years or with fine only then the said offence is made non-cognizable and bailable, which offence can be tried by "Any Magistrate".
"Section 11 POCSO Act (Theprotection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012): Sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment. - A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent, (i) utters any rvord or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits an)' object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the chitd; or
(ii) makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person; or
(iii) shows any object to a child in any form or media for pornographic purposes; or
(iv) repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means; or
(v) threatens to use, in any form of media, a real or fabricated depiction through electronic, film or digital or any other mode, of any part of the body of the child or the involvement of the child in a sexual act; or
(vi) entices a child for pornographic purposes or gives gratification therefor."
4
T. Section 12 : punishment for sexual ha_rassment
"Whoever, commit punished ,rirr, i1-,1t1Ylharassm€nt upon a. child shall be whichmay";;;#;r"'iill:$""L"j,ff :,,::.9,1,h;",::;
B. Section 11 of the Act of 2012 gives details of what amounts to commi ing sexual harassment upon a child with sexual intent. Section 12 of the Act ma_kes the commission of such sexual harassment as described under Section 1I punishable with imprisonment of a term which may extend to three years and sha_ll also be liable to fine.
)
I
I 1. [n view of the reasons discussed above, while holding that offence under Section 12 of the Act is cognizable and non-bailable, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. SURENDER ( For His Lordships Kind perusal)
Sd/- K. SHYLESHI DEPUIY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' {tD SECIION OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
KS,J
DATED:1 311212022
ORDER
CRLP.No.180 of 2022
E STATE
1
d 1? JrN zrn
'!t DF€ r,.r: . '
DISMISSiNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION.
I lp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, can be quashed on the ground that the offence is non-cognizable.
Whether an offence punishable with imprisonment up to three years under the POCSO Act is cognizable or non-cognizable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶24
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp.(2) SCC 335] · Who else cites this
M/s. Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of DelhiRelied on¶29
M/s. Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi [2012 112 SCC 221] · Who else cites this
D. Bhasker
State of Telangana
Kum Sravani
Smt. Kusumalatha
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
