Parameshwaran v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/7/2021 Parameshwaran ... Petitioner Vs.

The State ... Respondent/OP Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal, Advocate ... for the petitioner Ms. A. S. Zinu, Advocate ... for the respondent/OP September 16, 2021 [SR] Item No.3 The petitioner, who had lodged a written complaint alleging commission of offence under sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 has impugned the order No.19 dated 12.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Special Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested upon it under the law despite the Narazi petition filed on behalf of the petitioner against the final report true submitted against the accused.

It is pointed that learned court should not have endorsed the final report submitted by the police agency which smacks of malafide and result of perfunctory investigation and in this context, my attention is invited to the statement of the victim girl recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C to submit that there is a prima facie case of the offence alleged in the complaint. Mr. Jayapal further submits that learned Special Judge in a very casual manner dealt with the Narazi petition filed by the petitioner and came to the erroneous finding by accepting the final report without ascertaining the gravity of the offence alleged particularly victimization of the minor girl at the hands of the accused.

Secondly, after accepting the FRT, learned Special Judge has exceeded his limit by passing the impugned order discharging the accused thereof and directing the police agency to proceed against

the petitioner under section 22 of the POCSO Act, 2012 for giving false complaint and to take action in accordance with law. My attention is invited to the contention made in the paragraph No.5 of the narazi petition annexed to this revisional petition on behalf of the petitioner to submit that despite prima facie case emerging from the statement of victim girl under section 164 of Cr.P.C, the Investigating Officer has held a perfunctory investigation and filed FRT against the accused. Ms. A. S. Zinu, learned advocate for the State invites my attention to various pages of the case diary to point out that a fullfledged investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer, and it revealed during investigation that dispute between the parties related to an issue of parking their vehicle in a public place, which fact is evident from the statements of the neighbouring persons examined under section 161 Cr.P.C testifying false allegation against the accused except the statement of the victim girl under section 164 Cr.P.C.

Now, the order impugned is required to be gone into. It appears that learned Special Judge has detailed facts relating to the investigation while coming to a conclusion that the material collected in the course of investigation is false and made in order to humiliate, threat or defame the accused which is an abuse of process of law and so after concluding such finding, learned Court directed the Station House Officer concerned police station to immediately take steps against the petitioner/defacto complainant under the provision of section 22 of the POCSO Act, 2012. It would be apt to reproduce the provision of section 22 (1) of the Act which reads thus:

"Section 22 (1) Any person, who makes false complaint or provides false information against any person, in respect of an offence committed under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9, solely with the intention to humiliate, extort or threaten or defame him, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both." Having regard to the order impugned together with the aforesaid provision of Section 22(1), the Court rightly took a serious note of the false complaint with ulterior motive to hold threat on the accused, to humiliate and defame him. However, before ordering action against the petitioner, it was expedient on the part of the court to have summoned the victim girl i.e. daughter of the petitioner to test the veracity of her statement made under section 164 Cr.P.C

and such order should have been passed only after full-fledged trial on evidence on record. Therefore, by simply accepting the FRT, it was not justified on the part of learned Court to have directed the Station House Office to take action against the petitioner under section 22 of the POCSO Act, 2012. If at all, learned Judge proposed to proceed to take action under the said provision, it was desired on the part of the trial court to have given an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard on the issue before directing action to be taken against the petitioner at the hands of the police. Be that as it may, this Court affirms the acceptance of the FRT but the portion of the order directing the Station House Officer, Police Station, Pahargaon to proceed immediately against the petitioner - defacto complainant under the provision of section 22 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is hereby set aside.

Thus, the order impugned is modified to that extent. Accordingly, CRR/7/2021 is disposed of.

( Shivakant Prasad, J. )