Expected Of Lawyer To Know The Law Inside Out: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Lady Advocate For Disclosing POCSO Victim's Identity

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by the advocate, seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that the disclosure was inadvertent and without mala fide intention.

A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Nirzar S. Desai observed that the applicant, being a professional and officer of the Court, was expected to be well aware of statutory provisions prohibiting disclosure of the identity of victims of sexual offences. While making the observation, the bench remarked: "Considering the above observations, as well as the fact that the registration of the FIR and a bare reading of the same prima facie disclose an offence, merely because the present applicant is an advocate, the investigation in respect of the offence in question cannot be stayed."

Advocate Aftabhusen Ansari appeared for the applicant, while APP Ronak Raval represented the State.

Background

As per the prosecution, the FIR was lodged by the father of a minor girl, who alleged that the applicant compelled the child to give media bites and also disclosed her name, thereby violating the statutory prohibition against revealing the identity of child victims.

It was further alleged that the advocate encouraged the victim to speak on social media and provided details which led to her identification.

The FIR invoked Section 23(4) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which prohibits any person from disclosing the identity of a child victim, and Section 74(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which similarly protects the privacy of children involved in proceedings.

Court’s Observations

The Court, while stressing that as an advocate, the applicant was expected to be well-versed with statutory prohibitions, noted that the disclosure of a victim’s identity, whether deliberate or inadvertent, cannot be brushed aside lightly when it comes from a professional. The Court observed: “Being an advocate, it was expected of the present applicant to be well versed with the legal provisions and the sections of the relevant Acts, and not to act absolutely irrationally or run after publicity by giving media bites on social media, that too by disclosing the name of the victim girl.”

The Bench held that a prima facie case existed under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act and Section 74(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act. It also rejected the contention that the absence of mala fide intention should absolve the applicant at this stage. The bench, while making these observations, remarked: "Whether the aforesaid act was done with a bona fide intention, with a malafide intention, with a view to commit an offence, or it was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the present applicant, is a subject matter of investigation or trial as the stage may be, but a prima facie reading of the FIR constitutes an offence, as can be seen from the language of the FIR itself."

Further, while refusing to interfere with the order of the Special Court, the Bench concluded: “I do not see any reason to show disagreement in respect of the said order, which is not even under challenge before this Court, and when the investigation has taken place pursuant to the aforesaid order, the submission of the learned advocate for the applicant that the registration of an FIR in respect of a non-cognizable offence cannot be considered at this stage, when the investigation is ongoing.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition seeking the quashing of the FIR. The Bench held that the allegations disclosed the commission of an offence and that investigation could not be stalled at the threshold merely because the accused is an advocate.

Cause Title: XYZ Vs The State Of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:54132)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Aftabhusen Ansari

Respondents: APP Ronak Raval

Click here to read/download Judgment