Section 21 POCSO Act Deals With ‘Non-Reporting’ And Not ‘Delay In Reporting’ Of Offence: Delhi High Court
The Court said that prosecuting the petitioner, who reported the crime despite delays caused by her trauma stemming from domestic violence, would defeat the intent and purpose of Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is intended to address ‘non-reporting’ of offences, rather than penalizing delayed reporting.
The court further held that that prosecuting the petitioner, who reported the crime despite delays caused by personal trauma, would defeat the intent of the POCSO Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed, “Section 21 of POCSO Act, for instance, is intended to prevent suppression of sexual offences and ensure timely action in the best interest of the child. It is not meant to penalise those who, despite personal vulnerabilities, ultimately do report the crime.”
The Court added, “Section 21 of POCSO Act deals with ‘non-reporting’ and not ‘delay in reporting‘ of offence…To prosecute the petitioner under these circumstances would amount to punishing her for the very abuse she endured. Such a reading of the law would defeat the very spirit and intent of the POCSO Act, which is to protect vulnerable children through the cooperation of equally vulnerable caregivers, not through their prosecution.”
Advocate Anuj Kapoor represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner had called the Police Control Room (PCR) reporting physical assault by her in-laws. Later that day, she contacted the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) and reported that her husband and two sons of her sister-in-law had sexually assaulted her 10-year-old daughter.
The Petitioner took her daughter to Police Station, where the child revealed she had been sexually assaulted by her father and her cousins, which included inappropriate touching and showing of obscene videos by her father, and repeated sexual assault by her cousins.
The child was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was recorded. A FIR was registered under Sections 354 and 376DB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 6, 10, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court for quashing of the charges against her.
Subsequently, the police filed a chargesheet naming the Petitioner under Section 21 of the POCSO Act for allegedly failing to report the offence in time. The Trial Court, after noting that her earlier PCR calls only referred to physical assault and not sexual abuse, framed charges against her under Section 21. This was challenged in the present revision petition.
The Petitioner contended that she was herself a survivor of domestic abuse at the hands of her husband and in-laws, and being illiterate and lacking legal awareness, she initially tried to inform her in-laws about the abuse, but they dismissed her and subjected her to further cruelty. She further submitted that the delay in reporting should not be equated with her not reporting, and that she had eventually approached the DCW and police.
Reasoning of the Court
At the outset, the Court noted that the Petitioner was not an outsider or a silent bystander to the commission of sexual offences against the minor child. Noting that both Petitioner and the child were victims, the Court stated, “She is the mother of the child victim and, as per the material on record, she herself had been a victim of domestic violence at the hands of her inlaws, including her husband who is the main accused in the present case.”
The Court said, “The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. paints a clear picture of the mother‘s own vulnerability and the hostile circumstances in which she lived. The victim disclosed that, shortly before the lodging of the complaint, she had returned from school and witnessed her maternal uncle (chacha) physically assaulting her mother, pushing her to leave the house, and causing visible injuries upon her.”
Adverting to Section 21 of the POCSO Act, the Court noted that the object of the provision is to ensure reporting of sexual offences against children and not to criminalise delayed reporting in circumstances of duress, especially by individuals who themselves have been survivors of violence.
Noting that there existed a difference between non-reporting and delayed reporting, the Bench observed, “Clearly, Section 21 of POCSO Act deals with ‘non-reporting‘ and not ‘delay in reporting‘ of offence. This is not a case where the petitioner had actively concealed the offence or attempted to shield the perpetrators. On the contrary, her conduct – though delayed – is marked by eventual courage, initiative, and the instinct to protect her child, even at great personal risk. The mother in the present case did not suppress the offence indefinitely…Such a reading of the law would defeat the very spirit and intent of the POCSO Act, which is to protect vulnerable children through the cooperation of equally vulnerable caregivers, not through their prosecution.”
The Court held that framing charges against the Petitioner under Section 21 of the POCSO Act would cause grave prejudice to not just the Petitioner, who herself was a victim of domestic violence, but also to the minor victim who is dependent upon her mother for support.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Mother X Of Victim A v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:2746)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Anuj Kapoor, Shivom Sethi
Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar
