The Post pertains to two
petitions, CRM-M-36154-2023 and CRM-M-44425-2023, brought before the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The case revolves around a
tragic incident where a 16-year-old student committed suicide, alleging
harassment by school authorities. The petitions are filed by Surjeet Khanna,
the school Principal, and Axx, the deceased child's mother, respectively. Axx
accused the school of negligence and harassment, seeking action against the
school management, while Surjeet Khanna sought to quash the FIR lodged against
her and summon Axx as an accused under the POCSO Act. The court
considered the mandatory reporting obligations under the POCSO Act,
emphasizing the duty of any person, including parents, to inform the police or
Special Juvenile Police Unit about potential or actual offenses. The court
dismissed both petitions, stating that the matter was premature and that the
Special Court should decide on Surjeet Khanna's application judiciously.
The case arose from a tragic incident involving the suicide of a
16-year-old student and subsequent allegations of harassment by the school
authorities. The petitions centered on the application of the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Axx, the deceased
child's mother, accused the school of negligence, seeking action against the
school management, while Surjeet Khanna, the school Principal, sought to quash
the FIR against her and summon Axx as an accused under the POCSO Act.
The court highlighted the mandatory reporting obligations under the POCSO
Act, emphasizing that any person, including parents, has a duty to inform the
police or Special Juvenile Police Unit about potential or actual offenses. The
court dismissed both petitions, stating that the matter was premature and that
the Special Court should make a judicious decision on Surjeet Khanna's
application.
In its ruling, the court delved into the legal aspects concerning the
summoning of the accused under various sections of the POCSO Act and the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court emphasized that the Special
Court should consider the evidence and decide whether to summon Axx as an
accused, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
The court noted that while Section 33 of the POCSO Act and Section
193 CrPC do not explicitly provide for serving a notice to the proposed
accused, there is no legal prohibition against doing so in certain situations.
Ultimately, the court dismissed both petitions, emphasizing that the Special
Court should make a decision based on the application and the evidence
presented.
Important Questions: -
1. A. What are the key incidents and allegations mentioned in the case?
· The case involves a tragic incident where a 16-year-old student
committed suicide, alleging harassment by school authorities. The mother of the
deceased child, referred to as 'Axx', filed a petition accusing the school of
negligence and seeking action against the school management. On the other hand,
Mrs. Surjeet Khanna, the Principal of the school, filed a petition to quash the
FIR against her and summon Axx as an accused under the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The petitions revolve
around the interpretation and application of the POCSO Act in the context of
the tragic incident involving the deceased child. The court emphasized the
mandatory reporting obligations under the POCSO Act, stating that any
person, including parents, has a duty to inform the police or Special Juvenile
Police Unit about potential or actual offenses. The court dismissed both
petitions, stating that the matter was premature and that the Special Court should
decide on Surjeet Khanna's application judiciously. The case also delves into
the legal aspects concerning the summoning of the accused under various
sections of the POCSO Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court
emphasized that the Special Court should consider the evidence and decide
whether to summon Axx as an accused, taking into account the specific facts and
circumstances of the case. The court noted that while Section 33 of the POCSO
Act and Section 193 CrPC do not explicitly provide for serving a notice to the
proposed accused, there is no legal prohibition against doing so in certain
situations. Ultimately, the court dismissed both petitions, emphasizing that
the Special Court should decide based on the application and the evidence
presented.
2. B. What are the relevant legal provisions under the POCSO Act discussed in
the document?
· The document discusses several relevant legal provisions under the Protection
of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). It specifically
highlights the provisions related to reporting of offenses, such as Section 19,
which mandates that any person having knowledge of an offense under the POCSO
Act is obligated to inform the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local
police. The document emphasizes that the use of the word 'shall' in Section
19(1) makes it mandatory for individuals to report such offenses, irrespective
of their association with the victim or the institution involved.
Additionally, the
document discusses Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which provides for
punishment for failure to report or record a case. It underscores the legal
implications of this provision, particularly in the context of the case, where
the accused Principal sought to summon the mother of the deceased child as an
accused under this section.
Furthermore, the
document delves into the powers and procedures of the Special Court under
Section 33 of the POCSO Act, which allows the Special Court to take
cognizance of any offense without the accused being committed to it for trial,
upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting such offense or upon a police
report of such facts.
In summary, the
document extensively discusses the legal provisions related to reporting
offenses, punishment for failure to report or record a case, and the powers and
procedures of the Special Court under the POCSO Act.
3. C. What are the arguments presented by the mother ('Axx') and the Principal
of the school (Mrs. Surjeet Khanna) in the case?
· The arguments presented by the mother ('Axx') and the Principal of the
school (Mrs. Surjeet Khanna) in the case revolve around the application of the Protection
of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Axx accused the
school of negligence and harassment, seeking action against the school
management. She contended that she had informed the school authorities about
the bullying and harassment of the deceased child, and therefore, she had
fulfilled her duty as per the Child Protection Policy of the School. On the
other hand, Mrs. Surjeet Khanna, the Principal, sought to quash the FIR lodged
against her and summon Axx as an accused under Section 21 of the POCSO
Act. Mrs. Surjeet Khanna argued that Axx, as the mother of the victim, was
equally responsible for not reporting the matter to the police, as required
under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, and therefore should be summoned as
an accused to face trial under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. Mrs. Surjeet
Khanna also referred to various emails showing communication between Axx and
the school authorities, emphasizing that Axx was aware of the offenses under
the POCSO Act against the child and should have reported the matter to
the police. The arguments of both parties revolve around the interpretation and
application of the POCSO Act in the context of the tragic incident
involving the deceased child.
D. How does the document discuss the jurisdiction and powers of the Special Court under the POCSO Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) concerning summoning the proposed accused?
· The document contains information related to two petitions, CRM-M-36154-2023
and CRM-M-44425-2023, presented before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh. The case revolves around the tragic suicide of a 16-year-old
student who alleged harassment by school authorities. The petitions were
filed by Surjeet Khanna, the school Principal, and Axx, the deceased child's
mother. Axx accused the school of negligence and harassment, seeking action
against the school management, while Surjeet Khanna sought to quash the FIR
lodged against her and summon Axx as an accused under the POCSO Act. The
court emphasized the mandatory reporting obligations under the POCSO Act,
stating that any person, including parents, must inform the police or
Special Juvenile Police Unit about potential or actual offenses. The court
dismissed both petitions, stating that the matter was premature and that the
Special Court should decide on Surjeet Khanna's application judiciously.
The court also delved into the legal aspects concerning the summoning of the accused under various sections of the POCSO Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It emphasized that the Special Court should consider the evidence and decide whether to summon Axx as an accused, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The court noted that while Section 33 of the POCSO Act and Section 193 CrPC do not explicitly provide for serving a notice to the proposed accused, there is no legal prohibition against doing so in certain situations. Ultimately, the court dismissed both petitions, emphasizing that the Special Court should make a decision based on the application and the evidence presented.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
0 Comments