Karnataka High Court refuses to quash FIR against school heads for allegedly suppressing sexual assault complaint by minor against roommate

The High Court of Karnataka has refused to quash criminal proceedings against three administrators of a high school in Udupi district. They have been accused of failing to report and allegedly attempting to suppress a sexual assault complaint made by a minor against his hostel roommate, contrary to the mandatory obligations to report such offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by the school’s headmaster, assistant headmaster/warden and the child welfare officer challenging the criminal case registered against them in June for allegedly failing to discharge their statutory duty under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act and attempting to suppress the alleged offence.

Obligation to report

“The obligation to report is instantaneous, absolute and admits of no discretion. There is no window for deliberation, no latitude for internal inquiry, no scope for institutional image-management and certainly no licence to dilute, embellish or alter the complaint in an attempt to shield the reputation of the institution, as is prima facie discernible in the case at hand,” the court observed.

The incident allegedly took place in the early hours of June 2 this year at the school hostel. According to the complaint, the victim, a class 10 student, immediately informed the warden and subsequently approached the higher authorities.

Attempt to suppress

However, instead of reporting the incident to the police as per the POCSO Act’s mandate, the school authorities allegedly attempted to suppress it. The complaint was finally lodged by the victim’s father, alleging that the child welfare officer destroyed his son’s original written complaint and compelled him to submit a fresh statement portraying the incident as a “consensual act” resulting from a quarrel between the two students. The officials are also accused of threatening the victim and pressuring him to alter his version of events.

The petitioners contended that Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which penalises failure to report offences, is a bailable offence carrying a short sentence of up to one year, but the court said that “the seriousness of an offence cannot be assessed solely on the basis of punishment prescribed”.

“The gravity of an offence is not measured merely by the quantum of punishment prescribed but by the sanctity of the duty that has been breached. Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act are not ornamental provisions placed in the statute book; they constitute the very backbone of the legislative framework intended to ensure that offences against children are brought to light without the slightest delay…,” the court observed.

The material presently available prima facie discloses that the offences committed by the petitioners are punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, the court said while pointing out that only the probe will decide whether additional offences would crop up or they would be exonerated.