Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Karnataka High Court: In a petition seeking quashing of FIR registered for offences under Sections 4, 8 and 21, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the Single Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., held that the allegations against the petitioners prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 21, POCSO Act for failure to report a child sexual abuse complaint. Observing that the complaint alleged deliberate suppression of the incident by treating it as consensual, compelling the victim to alter his complaint, and withholding the matter from the police and the victim’s parents, the Court reiterated that educational institutions cannot substitute the mandatory reporting obligation under Sections 19 and 21, POCSO Act with an internal inquiry. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere at the threshold, the Court dismissed the petition and permitted the investigation to proceed in accordance with law.
Background
The complainant’s son, a Class X student residing in the hostel of Excellent English Medium School, Moodabidre, was allegedly sexually assaulted by his roommate, who thrusted his penis into the complainant’s son mouth, on 2 June 2026 at about 1.00 a.m. The victim immediately informed the resident warden about the incident, however, instead of informing the police as mandated under the POCSO Act, the school authorities treated the incident as a consensual act. It was further alleged that the Child Welfare Officer destroyed the victim’s original written complaint describing the assault and compelled him to write another letter stating that no sexual offence had occurred and that the complaint stemmed from a quarrel between the 2 boys. The victim was also allegedly threatened with action under the POCSO Act, and the incident was withheld from his parents. Although the principal accused confessed to the incident on 3 June 2026, the school authorities still failed to report the matter to the police.
Subsequently, on 10 June 2026, the victim disclosed the incident to his father during disciplinary proceedings at the hostel. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint, pursuant to which a Zero FIR was registered and transferred to Moodabidre Police Station. A crime was registered against the accused student and the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.
Analysis
The Court noted that the alleged offences were recorded under Sections 4, 8, and 21, POCSO Act. The Court observed that while the offences under Sections 4 (penetrative sexual assault) and 8 (punishment for sexual assault), POCSO Act were attributable only to the principal accused, the allegations against the petitioners, would attract liability under Section 21 of the Act for failure to report the offence.
“The statutory scheme of the POCSO Act leaves little room for equivocation. It is built upon the foundational premise that every allegation of sexual abuse against a child must be treated with utmost seriousness, promptly reported, and immediately set into motion before the statutory authorities. The legislative intent is not merely punitive towards the principal offender, but equally preventive against institutional silence. The duty to report is, therefore, not a matter of discretion but a statutory command.”
The Court noted that Section 19 creates an unequivocal obligation upon every person having knowledge or apprehension of a POCSO offence to immediately report it to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. The Court observed that the provision consciously has the expression “shall” which leaves no scope for any individual or institution to conduct an internal inquiry, assess the credibility of the allegation, or suppress the complaint, as the determination of its truth lies exclusively with the investigating agency and the Special Court. Thereafter, the Court noted that Section 21, POCSO Act gives teeth to this legislative command by criminalising the failure to report such offences and imposing a heightened responsibility on persons in charge of institutions. Educational institutions, particularly residential schools and hostels entrusted with the care of children, stand in loco parentis. They owe not merely a moral duty but a heightened statutory obligation to ensure that every allegation of child sexual abuse is immediately brought to the notice of the law enforcement machinery.
Relying upon Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2611, State of Maharashtra v. Maroti, (2023) 4 SCC 298, and Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 546, the Court reiterated that prompt and proper reporting is integral to the object of the POCSO Act. The Court observed that prompt and proper reporting is essential to protect children and preserve crucial evidence, and that the comparatively lesser punishment prescribed under Section 21 does not dilute the gravity of the offence or the strict statutory obligation to report. The Court also referred to Sanjeev Kumar v. State (UT Administration), 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 7075, which held that school authorities cannot shelter behind a plea of ignorance once complaints of sexual abuse are brought to their notice as its a statutory duty imposed by Sections 19 and 21 which is activated upon receipt of credible information and cannot be substituted by institutional discretion or internal resolution of the complaint. Thereafter, the Court noted that there is one single thought through all the above quoted judgments, that,
“the statutory mandate under Section 21, POCSO Act admits of no dilution, no hesitation, and no delay. The duty to report an offence against a child is not a matter of institutional discretion but an imperative cast by the statute, the breach of which itself constitutes a distinct offence”.
The Court found that the allegations against the petitioners disclosed more than a mere failure to report. The complaint alleged deliberate suppression of the offence by treating it as consensual, compelling the victim to alter his complaint, and withholding the incident from his parents. The Court observed that the truth of these allegations was a matter for investigation and could not be examined in proceedings for quashing the FIR as silence in such circumstances is not institutional prudence but statutory delinquency. It further held that institutions cannot evade their statutory duty under Sections 19 and 21, POCSO Act by prioritising institutional interests or relying on the comparatively lesser punishment prescribed under Section 21.
Decision
Finding that the allegations in the complaint prima facie attracted Section 21, POCSO Act, the Court held that the truthfulness of the allegations and the applicability of any additional offences were matters for investigation. Accordingly, the Court refused to quash the FIR and dismissed the petition
[Shivprasad Bhat v. State of Karnataka, CRL.P No. 9422 of 2026, decided on 2-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Jithin Jeijo, Advocate
For the respondent: State PP
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
