Why FIR delayed in Rape Case: High Court

Coming down heavily on Police in a minor Rape Case, a Delhi Court has issued a show-cause notice to an officer asking why he didn’t register an FIR immediately after receiving the complaint & why proceedings under Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences (Pocso) law shouldn’t be initiated against him.

Additional Sessions Judge Sudhandhu Kaushik said that “Police have flouted provisions of the Pocso Act, 2012, which mandates a prompt action by police for securing the evidence & ensuring welfare of the child survivor".

While issuing notice to the station house officer (SHO) of the police station concerned, the Court asked him to explain why shouldn’t he face action for non-compliance of provision (Section 19 of Pocso Act) of the law that makes it mandatory to register a case immediately & “report the matter to the child welfare committee & the special court” within 24 hours.

It was seen that though a complaint was made on Jan 4, 2020, in this case, Police didn't register the FIR till March 6.

The Judge Ordered, “The SHO is directed to furnish reply (to be forwarded through the concerned DCP) mentioning the reasons as to why he failed to register the FIR immediately despite gaining information that a minor girl had been sexually assaulted".

The direction came during rejection of the anticipatory bail plea of the accused, who was the survivor’s father. It was alleged that the man had sexually assaulted his six-year-old daughter. The mother noticed that the survivor had become unusually quiet & behaved strangely. She lodged a complaint with police on Jan 4, & subsequently with the Crime Against Women cell on Jan 6 after being physically assaulted by her husband.

Although the couple compromised the matter by way of a settlement deed, the mother alleged that the accused continued to sexually assault their daughter on two subsequent occasions.

The accused contested the allegations stating his wife had cheated on him with an ex-employee & framed him in a false case when he confronted her.

The mother’s lawyer & the prosecutor argued that the man’s plea was not maintainable if the provisions of law relating to rape & the survivor’s age was considered.

The Court underscored the “specific allegations” in the mother’s complaint against her husband elaborating penetrative sexual assault by the father on the minor daughter. “I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for exercising the extraordinary discretion of granting anticipatory bail to the accused… bail application is accordingly dismissed,” the Court held.

(The victim's identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Apex Court directives on cases related to sexual assault) 

Source Link