Orissa High Court

Pandit Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Another ..... Opp. ... on 13 May, 2025

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            CRLMC No. 611 of 2024
Pandit Sahu                             .....                             Petitioner
                                                            Mr. J. Panda, Advocate
                                      -versus-
State of Odisha and Another             .....                           Opp. Parties
                                                            Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC

              CORAM:
                    HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                  ORDER

30.04.2025 Order No.

04. (Through hybrid Mode)

1. This CRLMC has been filed for quashing the criminal

proceeding against the petitioner for commission of offences

punishable under Sections 363/342/ 376 (2) (n)/ 376 (3)/ 506 and 34

of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") read with Section 4/6/17

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ( in short

"POCSO" Act) , on the ground of amicable settlement.

2. While perusing the record, it has come to the notice of the

Court that in violation of the directions in a number of decisions and

orders of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, the counsel for the

petitioner has mentioned the name of the victim in the CRLMC. Her

name also appears in some of the Annexures. The distressing feature

is that, the Registry has accepted the petition without any demur or

objection.

3. This should have been detected at the time of filing by the

officer who registered the CRLMC or at least during Stamp

Reporting by the Stamp Reporter and remedial measures taken

immediately, but this unfortunately has not been done, for which her

name is available in the physical as well as digital record. This lapse

is a matter of grave concern.

*Corrected 4. Section 228 A has been brought into the of the * I.P.C. way vide order dated 13.05.2025 back in 1983. There have been some amendments to the Section in

2013 and 2018. The provision is extracted below:-

"228A. Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences, etc.--(1) Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an 2[offence under section 376, 3[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or section 376E] is alleged or found to have been committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) extends to any printing or publication of the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim if such printing or

publication

(a) by or under the order in writing of the officer-in-

charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation into such offence acting in good faith for the purposes of such investigation; or

(b) by, or with the authorisation in writing of, the victim; or

(c) where the victim is dead or minor or of unsound mind, by, or with the authorisation in writing of, the next of kin of the victim:

Provided that no such authorisation shall be given by the next of kin to anybody other than the chairman or the secretary, by whatever name called, of any recognised welfare institution or organisation. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "recognised welfare institution or organisation" means a social welfare institution or organisation recognised in this behalf by the Central or State Government. (3) Whoever prints or publishes any matter in relation to any proceeding before a court with respect to an offence referred to in sub-section (1) without the previous permission of such court shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--The printing or publication of the judgment of any High Court or the Supreme Court does not amount to an offence within the meaning of this section.]."

5. Sections 23 (2), 24 ( 5) and 33 ( 7) of the POCSO Act,

provide as follows:

23. Procedure for media. ......

"(2) No reports in any media shall disclose, the identity of a child including his name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood or any other particulars which may lead to disclosure of identity of the child:

Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Special Court, competent to try the case under the Act. may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the interest of the child."

24. Recording of statement of a child-.....

"(5) The police officer shall ensure that the identity of the child is protected from the public media, unless otherwise directed by the Special Court in the interest of the child."

33. Procedure and powers of Special Court....

"(7) The Special Court shall ensure that the identity of the child is not disclosed at any time during the course of investigation or trial:

Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Special Court may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the interest of the child. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, the identity of the child shall include the identity of the child's

family, school, relatives, neighbourhood or any other information by which the identity of the child may be revealed."

6. The Supreme Court in the cases of Nipun Sexana and Others

v. Union of India & Others: (2019) 2 SCC 703, had issued

directions in this regard which are extracted below:-

"50. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we issue the following directions:

50.1. No person can print or publish in print, electronic, social media, etc. the name of the victim or even in a remote manner disclose any facts which can lead to the victim being identified and which should make her identity known to the public at large.

50.2. In cases where the victim is dead or of unsound mind the name of the victim or her identity should not be disclosed even under the authorisation of the next of kin, unless circumstances justifying the disclosure of her identity exist, which shall be decided by the competent authority, which at present is the Sessions Judge. 50.3. FIRs relating to offences under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-AB, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376-DA, 376-DB or 376-E IPC and the offences under POCSO shall not be put in the public domain.

50.4. In case a victim files an appeal under Section 372 CrPC, it is not necessary for the victim to disclose his/her identity and the appeal shall be dealt with in the manner

laid down by law.

50.5. The police officials should keep all the documents in which the name of the victim is disclosed, as far as possible, in a sealed cover and replace these documents by identical documents in which the name of the victim is removed in all records which may be scrutinised in the public domain.

50.6. All the authorities to which the name of the victim is disclosed by the investigating agency or the court are also duty-bound to keep the name and identity of the victim secret and not disclose it in any manner except in the report which should only be sent in a sealed cover to the investigating agency or the court.

50.7. An application by the next of kin to authorise disclosure of identity of a dead victim or of a victim of unsound mind under Section 228-A(2)(c) IPC should be made only to the Sessions Judge concerned until the Government acts under Section 228-A(1)(c) and lays down criteria as per our directions for identifying such social welfare institutions or organisations. 50.8. In case of minor victims under POCSO, disclosure of their identity can only be permitted by the Special Court, if such disclosure is in the interest of the child. 50.9. All the States/Union Territories are requested to set up at least one "One-Stop Centre" in every district within one year from today.

51. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrars

General of all the High Courts so that the same can be placed before the Chairpersons of the Juvenile Justice Committee of all the High Courts for issuance of appropriate orders and directions and also to ensure that sincere efforts are made to set up One-Stop Centres in every district.

52. In view of the above, we dispose of these petitions as far as issues dealt with hereinabove are concerned."

On 30.06.2021 the Supreme Court in the case of Birbal

Kumar Nishad vrs. State of Chhattisgarh, (SLP (Crl.) Diary No.

7773 of 2021 while dismissing the appeal of the accused had

observed as follows:

"However, we take exception to the judgment of the Sessions Judge where the name of victim is mentioned. It is well established that in cases like the present one, the name of the victim is not to be mentioned in any proceeding. We are of the view that all the subordinate courts shall be careful in future while dealing with such cases."

In the case of Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta vrs. State of

Gujarat and Another: 2019 (14) SCC 522, the Supreme Court had

also expressed its concern and directed for removal of the name of

the victim from the records. The relevant portion of the case of

Sangitaben (supra) is extracted below:-

"8. Apart from the above, the High Court stands in clear violation of the precedents of this Hon'ble Court and statutory prescriptions, by disclosing the name of the "victim" throughout the impugned order. At this juncture, we would like to highlight Section 228-A IPC, which states as follows-

"228-A. Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences, etc.-(1) Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Section 376, Section 376- A, Section 376-AB, Section 376-B, Section 376-C. Section 376-D, Section 376-DA, Section 376-DB or Section 376-E is alleged or found to have been committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

* * * Explanation. The printing or publication of the judgment of any High Court or the Supreme Court does not amount to an offence within the meaning of this section."

9. Extrapolating the intention of the legislature in Section 228-A IPC, this Court in, State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh has made the following observations: (SCC p. 424, para 3).

"3. We do not propose to mention the name of the victim. Section 228-A IPC makes disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or is found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restriction does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by the High Court or the Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower courts, the name of the victim should not be indicated. We have chosen to describe her as "victim" in the judgment."

10. The concern of the legislature in protecting the identity of the victim is further evident from the provisions of POCSO Act. Section 33(7) of the same casts a duty on the Special Court to ensure that identity of the victim is not disclosed at any time during the course of investigation or trial. Further, Section 23 of the POCSO Act provides restriction on any form of media to disclose the identity of the victim which tends

to lower her reputation or infringes upon her privacy. No disclosure of any particular(s) is allowed which can eventually lead to disclosure of the identity of the victim.

11. Thus, taking note of the violation of settled principles of criminal law jurisprudence and statutory prescriptions vis-à-vis conversion of adjudication of bail application to a mini-trial and disclosure of identity of the "victim" by the High Court, we disapprove the manner in which the High Court has adjudicated the bail application and accordingly, quash the order passed by the High Court."

7. Mr. J. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he

should have been more careful while filing this application and

undertakes to file copies of the relevant documents after removing

the name of the victim. He also submits that Mr. Arun Kumar Das,

learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the victim by filing

Vakalatnama and an affidavit of the father of the victim.

8. The Registry is requested to forthwith redact the name of the

victim from the cause title of the CRLMC, paragraph 2 of the

CRLMC and three places in the FIR and make necessary changes in

the digital record. If her name appears in any other place in the

record, it shall be redacted from all such places / pages. It is open to

the learned counsel to submit the pages / application in question, as