On 2nd November 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar observed that Non-Reporting of Sexual Assault against a Minor Child despite knowledge is a serious crime and more often than not, it is an attempt to shield the offenders of the crime of sexual assault. (The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Dr. Maroti s/o Kashinath Pimpalkar)
Facts of the Case:
FIR No.185/2019 came to be registered against unidentified person(s) on the accusation of commission of sexual offences against minor tribal girls who were students of Infant Jesus English Public High School, Rajura residing in its girls’ hostel. The complaint was lodged by one Rajesh Tulsidas Dhotkar, Assistant Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Chandrapur. According to the appellant, the said officer received a telephonic information from the Superintendent of hostel that two girls were not keeping well.
The students were shifted from Rural Hospital Rajura to General Hospital, Chandrapur owing to their deteriorating health condition where a medical certificate was issued to the effect that there is suspicion of sexual abuse. During investigation, Superintendent of hostel and four other persons were arrested.
It was found that 17 minor girls were abused by accused and rupture of hymen was found. The respondent, Medical Practitioner, appointed for treatment of victim were taken to him. The investigation revealed that he had knowledge about the incidents, from the victims themselves as they revealed in their statements recorded u/s 161 of CrPC about the sexual assault to the respondent.
The respondent was under legal obligation, in terms of the provisions u/s 19(1) of the POCSO Act upon getting the knowledge about committing of an offence under the POCSO Act, to provide such information either to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police remained silent. After the chargesheet was filed, the respondent filed an anticipatory bail which was rejected by the Ld. Sessions Judge. For the sixth accused, the respondent herein, was charged for the failure to report the commission of the offence under the POCSO Act, in compliance with legal obligation punishable u/s 21(1). Thereafter, he filed a criminal application u/s 482 of CrPC seeking quashment of the FIR which was allowed, giving rise to the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The counsel for the appellant submitted that “some among the seventeen victims have given statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and some others under Section164 Cr.P.C., specifically stating that the respondent was informed of the sexual assault on them. Moreover, non-reporting of sexual assault against a minor child despite knowledge is a serious crime and more often than not, it is an attempt to shield the offenders of the crime of sexual assault.”
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the court in A.S. Krishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala and said, “the respondent could not have been accused of having failed to report the commission of the offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act despite possessing knowledge about its commission. Moreover, statements do not disclose anything suggesting knowledge of the respondent about the commission of the crime.”
Observations and Judgment of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed that “Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an exception and not the rule and it is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. Quashing may be appropriate where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. Recognising the constitutional obligation and keeping in view the fundamental concept u/A 15 of the Constitution and also realizing that sexual offences against children are not adequately addressed by the existing laws, POCSO Act was enacted. The provisions thereunder would reveal that it also aims to ensure that such offenders are not spared and should be properly booked.”
“The FIR carries suspicion of commission of sexual assault and the charge-sheet reveals prima facie against the respondent in relation to non-reporting of such an offence under the POCSO Act. Non-reporting of sexual assault against a minor child despite knowledge is a serious crime and more often than not, it is an attempt to shield the offenders of the crime of sexual assault.”
The cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors, State of M.P v. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors, Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Shiji alias Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika and Another, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita, Rajeev Kourav V. Baisahab & Ors., and A.S. Krishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala were referred by the court.
The appeal was allowed holding that the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.\
Case: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Dr. Maroti s/o Kashinath Pimpalkar
Citation: Criminal Appeal No.1874 of 2022
Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Date: November 02, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
