SRI AVIK BID v. THE STATE BY JALAHALLI POLICE STATION

#3. Heard Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/1st respondent.

#4. The learned senior counsel Sri C.V. Nagesh would vehemently contend that no such incident has ever happened. It was the children who were playing a dark room game in which 5 there was some commotion. Therefore, the petitioner had to intervene to assuage anguish. He would contend that the de-facto complainant has an axe to grind and, therefore, he has registered the complaint only to harass the petitioner. The learned senior counsel would submit that the statements recorded by the concerned Court of all the witnesses or victim children are verbatim similar and it runs contrary to Section 25 of the Act. He would further contend that the procedure adopted by the concerned Court is contrary to Section 26(1) and (4) of the Act. He would contend that the order of taking cognizance is in blatant violation of Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., as the concerned Court has not examined crucial documents. There is no order issuing summons to the petitioner upon taking of cognizance. Section 27 of the Act is violated, as there is no medical examination of any of the victims. Section 35 of the Act is violated as the evidence of the victims is not recorded within 30 days of taking of cognizance and the trial has not concluded despite lapse of four years. The learned senior counsel seeks to place reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court, which would all bear consideration in the course of the order qua their relevance. 6

#5. The de-facto complainant though served long ago has remained unrepresented.

#6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submissions of the learned senior counsel to contend that all the contentions of the petitioner are a matter of trial. The trial has commenced. There is an allegation of the petitioner not touching one but touching several children misusing darkness in the room, inappropriately. He would contend that if one child has said so, it would have been a different circumstance. There are about eight children who have alleged of the petitioner having touched them inappropriately. He would, therefore, contend that the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., should not be entertained and it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full- blown trial. Insofar as the order of taking cognizance or statutory violation of the Act is concerned, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that, that would not vitiate the entire proceedings. The petitioner can always urge all these contentions in an appeal in the event it becomes necessary to file. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 7

#7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

#8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The incident in question revolves round a birthday party on 30-09-2018, a day meant for joy, now enshrouded with grave impropriety. The daughter of the petitioner who lives in an apartment complex of Prestige Wellington Park, Jalahalli celebrates her birthday. For such celebration the children of the neighbouring apartments are invited. During the birthday celebration, the children indulge in playing a game of dark room, the game of dark room innocuous in appearance, allegedly becomes the backdrop of serious misconduct. The petitioner is said to have entered the room when one child had poked into the eye of another child. This is the explanation of the petitioner. On the same day, after dispersement of all the invitees, the father of the complainant at about 9.30 p.m. knocks at the doors of the petitioner along with others. The celebration turned into site of suspicion culminating in accusations of sexual assault. The allegation is that the petitioner has touched his daughter and 8 other children inappropriately. The petitioner denies the said fact. The complaint comes to be registered by the de-facto complainant against the petitioner on the next day. The complaint so registered reads as follows: “Date: 01/10/2018 Place: Bengaluru From, Sub: Case of child abuse Respected Sir/Madam, With respect to the subject matter, I would like to bring to your kind notification that the resident of 4023, Prestige Wellington Park, Jalahalli Mr. Avik, whose daughters birthday party was organized at his residence, got indulged in touching the kids private parts in the pretext of playing some games with lights switched off, causing severe discomfort. After returning home some kids informed about this incident to their individual parents. All of the girls are aged between 7-10 years. My daughter Ms. xxxx aged 10 years was one of the kids who has been affected with this act of child abuse. With our limited knowledge we understand that this kind of child abuse will attract a legal action under the POSCO act. Please do the needful. The other parent whose kid has been impacted by this abuse is Mrs. xxxx. Events are as follows: 9 The incident happened on 30th September 2018, between 6:30-8 pm at No: 4023, Prestige Wellington Park. • One of the parents reported the incident to other parents. • My daughter Ms. xxxx told us about the incident at 9:30 pm. She said "uncle, tickled me and touched me in my private parts". • We immediately called police control 100 and reported the incident. • We discussed with family and filing a complaint on 1st October 2018. Yours faithfully, Sd/- 01/10/2018 1:40 PM (cid:1)(cid:2)ಾಂಕ: 01/10/2018 ರಂದು ಸಮಯ 14-00 ಗಂ(cid:13)ೆಯ(cid:15)(cid:16) (cid:17)(cid:18)ಾ(cid:19)ದು(cid:20)ಾರರು ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹ oÁuÁ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA. 127/2018 u/s 7 & 8 of POCSO Act - 2012 ಪ(cid:22)(cid:23)ಾರ ಪ(cid:22)ಕರಣ (cid:20)ಾಖ(cid:15)(cid:26)(cid:20)ೆ. Sd/- Police Sub-Inspector Jalahalli Police Station Bangalore City.” (Emphasis added) The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.127 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.7 reads as follows: 10 “ಈ (cid:20)ೋ(cid:31)ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪ!"ಯ PÁ®A 4 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ಆ ೋ(cid:17)ಯು $ಾಲಹ’( )(cid:15)ೕ* oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢ÝUÉ +ೇ,ದ ಗಂಗಮ- ಸಕ(cid:19). ಬ’ ಇರುವ 2ೆ(cid:22)(cid:26)"ೕ3 ªÉ°èAUïl£ï ¥ÁPïð ಅ2ಾ5(cid:19)6ಂ57ನ ಟವ. ನಂ. 4 ರ 2(cid:2)ೇ ಮಹ:ಯ(cid:15)(cid:16)ರುವ ಮ(cid:2)ೆ ನಂ. 4023 ರ(cid:15)(cid:16) ಸಂ+ಾರ ಸ6ೕತ <ಾಸ=ರು>ಾ?(cid:2)ೆ. ವಷ(cid:19)ದವಳ ಹು!"ದ ಆ ೋ(cid:17)ಯಯಯಯ ಮಗಳAಮಗಳAಮಗಳAಮಗಳA Bಾ(cid:18)ಾBಾ(cid:18)ಾBಾ(cid:18)ಾBಾ(cid:18)ಾ 9 9 9 9 ವಷ(cid:19)ದವಳ ರಂದು ಆ ೋ(cid:17) (cid:1)(cid:2)ಾಂಕ 30/09/2018 ರಂದು ಹು!"ದ (cid:1)(cid:2)ಾಂಕ ಹು!"ದ ಹು!"ದ ವಷ(cid:19)ದವಳ ವಷ(cid:19)ದವಳ ಆ ೋ(cid:17) ಆ ೋ(cid:17) ರಂದುರಂದು (cid:1)(cid:2)ಾಂಕ (cid:1)(cid:2)ಾಂಕ ಹಬFದಹಬFದಹಬFದಹಬFದ ಸBಾರಂಭ=ದುH ಅ2ಾ5(cid:19)6ಂಟ7J6ಂಟ7J6ಂಟ7J6ಂಟ7J ಬರುವಂ>ೆ ಅ(cid:20)ೇಅ(cid:20)ೇಅ(cid:20)ೇಅ(cid:20)ೇ ಅ2ಾ5(cid:19) ಸBಾರಂಭ(cid:23)ೆI ಬರುವಂ>ೆ ಆ(cid:23)ೆಯು ಹು!"ದಹು!"ದಹು!"ದಹು!"ದ ಹಬFದಹಬFದಹಬFದಹಬFದ ಸBಾರಂಭ(cid:23)ೆI ಸBಾರಂಭ=ದುH, ಆ(cid:23)ೆಯು ಬರುವಂ>ೆ ಅ2ಾ5(cid:19) ಅ2ಾ5(cid:19) ಬರುವಂ>ೆ ಸBಾರಂಭ(cid:23)ೆI ಸBಾರಂಭ(cid:23)ೆI ಆ(cid:23)ೆಯು ಆ(cid:23)ೆಯು ಸBಾರಂಭ=ದುH ಸBಾರಂಭ=ದುH ಮಕILಾದ +ಾM+ಾM+ಾM+ಾM-5 ,ಂದ,ಂದ,ಂದ,ಂದ +ಾM+ಾM+ಾM+ಾM-10 K<ಾ(cid:26)ಗLಾದ +ಾM+ಾM+ಾM+ಾM-1 ರವರರವರರವರರವರ ಮಗಳAಮಗಳAಮಗಳAಮಗಳA +ಾM+ಾM+ಾM+ಾM-4 ಮತು?ಮತು?ಮತು?ಮತು? ಇತ ೆಇತ ೆಇತ ೆಇತ ೆ ಮಕILಾದ K<ಾ(cid:26)ಗLಾದ ಮಕILಾದಮಕILಾದ K<ಾ(cid:26)ಗLಾದ K<ಾ(cid:26)ಗLಾದ ಸುBಾರು 06-30 ಆOಾQK(cid:26)ದHಳA. ಆಆಆಆ (cid:1)ನ(cid:1)ನ(cid:1)ನ(cid:1)ನ ಸಂಸಂಸಂಸಂ$ೆ$ೆ$ೆ$ೆ ಸುBಾರು ಮಕIಳನುP ಸOಾಸOಾಸOಾಸOಾ ಆOಾQK(cid:26)ದHಳA ಇKPತ ೆ ಮಕIಳನುP Oಾಗೂ ಇKPತ ೆ ರವ ೆNನವರು Oಾಗೂ ರವ ೆNನವರು ಸುBಾರು ಸುBಾರು ಆOಾQK(cid:26)ದHಳA ಆOಾQK(cid:26)ದHಳA ಮಕIಳನುP ಮಕIಳನುP ಇKPತ ೆ ಇKPತ ೆ OಾಗೂOಾಗೂ ರವ ೆNನವರು ರವ ೆNನವರು ರವ ೆNನ ಮಕIಳAಮಕIಳAಮಕIಳAಮಕIಳA +ೇ,ದಂ>ೆ ಸುBಾರು 20-25 ಮಕIಳAಮಕIಳAಮಕIಳAಮಕIಳA +ೇ,ದಂ>ೆ.... ಸುBಾರು ಗಂ(cid:13)ೆRೆ +ಾM+ಾM+ಾM+ಾM-5 ,ಂದ,ಂದ,ಂದ,ಂದ +ಾM+ಾM+ಾM+ಾM-10 ರವ ೆNನ ಗಂ(cid:13)ೆRೆ ಸುBಾರು ಸುBಾರು +ೇ,ದಂ>ೆ +ೇ,ದಂ>ೆ ರವ ೆNನ ರವ ೆNನ ಗಂ(cid:13)ೆRೆ ಗಂ(cid:13)ೆRೆ 2ಾVೊWಂ:ದHರು. ಅ(cid:15)(cid:16)ಅ(cid:15)(cid:16)ಅ(cid:15)(cid:16)ಅ(cid:15)(cid:16) ಮಕIಳAಮಕIಳAಮಕIಳAಮಕIಳA ಆಚರUೆಯ(cid:15)(cid:16) 2ಾVೊWಂ:ದHರು Bಾ(cid:18)ಾಳ ಹುಟು"ಹುಟು"ಹುಟು"ಹುಟು" ಹಬFದಹಬFದಹಬFದಹಬFದ ಆಚರUೆಯ(cid:15)(cid:16) OೋN Bಾ(cid:18)ಾಳ ಆ ೋ(cid:17)ಯ ಮ(cid:2)ೆRೆಮ(cid:2)ೆRೆಮ(cid:2)ೆRೆಮ(cid:2)ೆRೆ OೋN ಆ ೋ(cid:17)ಯ 2ಾVೊWಂ:ದHರು 2ಾVೊWಂ:ದHರು ಆಚರUೆಯ(cid:15)(cid:16) ಆಚರUೆಯ(cid:15)(cid:16) Bಾ(cid:18)ಾಳ Bಾ(cid:18)ಾಳ OೋNOೋN ಆ ೋ(cid:17)ಯ ಆ ೋ(cid:17)ಯ ಹಂಚVಾ[ತು. ಅ(cid:15)(cid:16)ಅ(cid:15)(cid:16)ಅ(cid:15)(cid:16)ಅ(cid:15)(cid:16) ಎಲ(cid:16),ಗೂ ಹಂಚVಾ[ತು ಆಟಗಳ(cid:2)ಾP:, ನಂತರನಂತರನಂತರನಂತರ (cid:23)ೇ(cid:23)ೇ(cid:23)ೇ(cid:23)ೇPï ಕ5ಕ5ಕ5ಕ5 Bಾ:(cid:26)Bಾ:(cid:26)Bಾ:(cid:26)Bಾ:(cid:26) ಎಲ(cid:16),ಗೂ (cid:23)ೆಲವY ಆಟಗಳ(cid:2)ಾP: XದಲುXದಲುXದಲುXದಲು (cid:23)ೆಲವY ಹಂಚVಾ[ತು ಹಂಚVಾ[ತು ಎಲ(cid:16),ಗೂ ಎಲ(cid:16),ಗೂ ಆಟಗಳ(cid:2)ಾP: ಆಟಗಳ(cid:2)ಾP: (cid:23)ೆಲವY (cid:23)ೆಲವY ಮಕIಳAಮಕIಳAಮಕIಳAಮಕIಳA \ಂ:\ಂ:\ಂ:\ಂ: \ಂ\ಂ\ಂ\ಂದುದುದುದು, ನಂತರನಂತರನಂತರನಂತರ ಆಆಆಆ ಮ(cid:2)ೆಯಮ(cid:2)ೆಯಮ(cid:2)ೆಯಮ(cid:2)ೆಯ Bಾಸ"]Bಾಸ"]Bಾಸ"]Bಾಸ"] ^ೆ_^ೆ_^ೆ_^ೆ_ ರೂ‘ನ(cid:15)(cid:16) ರೂ‘ನ(cid:15)(cid:16) Vೈ5Vೈ5Vೈ5Vೈ5 (cid:26)Qb(cid:26)Qb(cid:26)Qb(cid:26)Qbಆcಆcಆcಆc ರೂ‘ನ(cid:15)(cid:16) ರೂ‘ನ(cid:15)(cid:16) ಆಟ<ಾಡು\ದHರು. Rೋ*" Oೌ*Oೌ*Oೌ*Oೌ* ಎಂಬಎಂಬಎಂಬಎಂಬ ಆಟ<ಾಡು\ದHರು Bಾ:(cid:23)ೊಂಡು +ೇ,+ೇ,+ೇ,+ೇ, Oೌ*Oೌ*Oೌ*Oೌ*/Rೋ*" Bಾ:(cid:23)ೊಂಡು ಆಟ<ಾಡು\ದHರು ಆಟ<ಾಡು\ದHರು Rೋ*" Rೋ*" Bಾ:(cid:23)ೊಂಡು Bಾ:(cid:23)ೊಂಡು ಆ ಸಮಯದ(cid:15)(cid:16) ಆ ೋ(cid:17)ಯು ರೂ‘(cid:2)ೊಳಗfೆ OೋN ಕತ?ಲ(cid:15)(cid:16) +ಾM-5 ,ಂದ 10 ರವ ೆNನ ಮಕI’Rೆ ಬ(cid:13)ೆ" 6ೕ(cid:15)ಂದ ಕುಂ:, ಎ(cid:20)ೆ ಮತು? ಗು2ಾ?ಂಗ ಇ>ಾg(cid:1) ಕfೆಗಳ(cid:15)(cid:16) ಮು!" VೈಂNಕ (cid:20)ೌಜ(cid:19)ನg<ೆಸNರು>ಾ?(cid:2)ೆಂದು ಈ (cid:20)ೋ(cid:31)ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪ!", ಆದH,ಂದ 6ೕಲIಂಡ PÀ®A jÃvÁå DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ²PÁëºÀð£ÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAzÀÄ F (cid:20)ೋ(cid:31)ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪ!".” (Emphasis added) The finding in the charge sheet is that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. The concerned Court, upon filing of the charge sheet, takes cognizance of the offence. The order of taking cognizance reads as follows: “COGNIZANCE 11 Perused police report and the documents submitted along with the said report. On being satisfied, exercising power under Section 190(1)(b) and 193 of Cr.P.C., cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. Office is directed to register the case in Spl.C.C., register, with due conversion of Crime No.1123 of 2018 in CTS. Office to attend regarding compliance under Section 35(1) of POCSO Act i.e., securing of statement U/s 164 of Cr.P.C., Medical Report, FSL Report, Property from the complainant police.” Sd/- 17/12/2018 LIV ACC & SJ (CCH-55) Sitting in Child Friendly Court, Bangalore Urban.” The trial progresses. Four years passed by after the order of taking cognizance. The petitioner prefers the subject petition only on 16-03-2022. The learned Senior Counsel assails the proceedings on statutory aberrations. I therefore, deem it appropriate to notice, the contention of the petitioner, contentionwise. THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT:

#9. The learned senior counsel has projected violation of Section 25 of the Act. Section 25 of the Act reads as follows: “25. Recording of statement of a child by Magistrate.—(1) If the statement of the child is being 12 recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (herein referred to as the Code), the Magistrate recording such statement shall, notwithstanding anything contained therein, record the statement as spoken by the child: Provided that the provisions contained in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 164 of the Code shall, so far it permits the presence of the advocate of the accused shall not apply in this case. (2) The Magistrate shall provide to the child and his parents or his representative, a copy of the document specified under Section 207 of the Code, upon the final report being filed by the police under Section 173 of that Code.” Section 25 mandates that recording of statement by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., should be as spoken by the child. The statements are appended to the petition. The statements are alleged to be verbatim similar. It is true that the statements rendered under Section 164 of Cr.P.C appear startlingly uniform. One of the statements so recorded is as follows: iಾUೆ XXXX ಸಂಸಂಸಂಸಂ 127/2018 ಕಲಂಕಲಂಕಲಂಕಲಂ 7 & 8 ಆcಆcಆcಆc )ೕ)ೕ)ೕ)ೕPÉÆìà ಆj"ಆj"ಆj"ಆj"-2012 $ಾಲಹ’( )(cid:15)ೕ*)(cid:15)ೕ*)(cid:15)ೕ*)(cid:15)ೕ* iಾUೆ “$ಾಲಹ’( iಾUೆ iಾUೆ $ಾಲಹ’( $ಾಲಹ’( Oೇ’(cid:23)ೆ ; (cid:2)ೊಂದ ^ಾಲkಯ^ಾಲkಯ^ಾಲkಯ^ಾಲkಯ Oೇ’(cid:23)ೆ (cid:2)ೊಂದ Oೇ’(cid:23)ೆ Oೇ’(cid:23)ೆ (cid:2)ೊಂದ(cid:2)ೊಂದ ಕು|| XXXX ತಂ(cid:20)ೆ XXXX ವಯಸು7 XX ವಷ(cid:19) XXXX. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01/10/2018 (cid:2)ಾನು 6ೕVೆ \’(cid:26)ದ =Lಾಸದ(cid:15)(cid:16) ತಂ(cid:20)ೆ >ಾ[ $ೊ>ೆ <ಾ(cid:26)ಸು>ಾ? XXXX ಇಂN(cid:16)ೕm ಸೂI.ನ(cid:15)(cid:16) 5(cid:2)ೇ ತರಗ\ಯ(cid:15)(cid:16) <ಾgಸಂಗ Bಾಡು\(cid:20)ೆHೕ(cid:2)ೆ. ನಮ- ಅ2ಾ5(cid:19)6ಂ5ನ nಾ(cid:16)5 ನಂ. 4023 ರ(cid:15)(cid:16) Bಾಯ ಎಂಬ ಹುಡುN ತಂ(cid:20)ೆ >ಾ[ $ೊ>ೆ <ಾಸ=ರು>ಾ?Lೆ. (cid:1)(cid:2)ಾಂಕ 30/09/2018 13 ರಂದು Bಾ(cid:18)ಾಳ ಬತ(cid:19)fೇ ಇದುH, ಈ ಬತ(cid:19)fೇ 2ಾ!(cid:19)Rೆ Bಾ(cid:18)ಾ ಅ2ಾ5(cid:19)6ಂmï£À (cid:23)ೆಲವY ಮಕIಳನುP ಇo<ೈ5 Bಾ:ದHಳA. ಅ(cid:20)ೇ ,ೕ\ ನನPನೂP ಸOಾ ಬತ(cid:19)fೇ 2ಾ!(cid:19)Rೆ ಇo<ೈ5 Bಾ:ದHಳA. ಆ (cid:1)ನ ಸಂ$ೆ ಸುBಾರು 6-30 ಗಂ(cid:13)ೆRೆ (cid:2)ಾನು Bಾ(cid:18)ಾಳ nಾ(cid:16)5 ನಂ. 4023Rೆ Oೋ(cid:20)ೆನು. ಅ(cid:15)(cid:16) ಬp(cid:19)fೇ 2ಾ!(cid:19)Rೆ xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx Oಾಗೂ ಇನುP ಹಲ<ಾರು ಸುBಾರು 20-25 ಜನ ಮಕIಳA ಒ!"Rೆ +ೇ,(cid:23)ೊಂ:(cid:20)ೆHವY. (cid:2)ಾ<ೆVಾ(cid:16) +ೇ, ಅವರ ಮ(cid:2)ೆಯ Oಾ(cid:15)ನ(cid:15)(cid:16) Xದಲು ,ಷs $ೊ>ೆ tಂRೋ Rೇu7 ಆಟ<ಾ:(cid:20)ೆವY. ನಂತರ ಅವರ ತಂ(cid:20)ೆ >ಾ[ಗಳA Bಾ(cid:18)ಾ’ಂದ (cid:23)ೇj ಕ5 Bಾ:(cid:26) ಹಂv, $ೊ>ೆRೆ ಎಲ(cid:16),ಗೂ wxಾ, +ಾgಂ_=b, ಜೂ* (cid:23)ೊಟ"ರು. (cid:2)ಾ<ೆಲ(cid:16)ರೂ ಅದ(cid:2)ೆPVಾ(cid:16) \ಂದು ಕು:ದು, ನಂತರ ಅವರ ಮ(cid:2)ೆಯ Bಾಸ"] ^ೆ_ ರೂ‘ನ(cid:15)(cid:16) Vೈ5 ಆc Bಾ: s¸ÉÌÃ, Oೌ* ಆಟ ಆಡು\(cid:20)ೆHವY. ನಂತರ ಅ=ೕj ಅಂಕ. ರೂ‘(cid:2)ೊಳRೆ ಬಂದು, Kೕ<ೆVಾ(cid:16) ಆಟ ಆಡು>ಾ? ಇ,, (cid:2)ಾನು ರೂ‘ನ ಮೂVೆಯ(cid:15)(cid:16) Kಂ\ರು>ೆ?ೕ(cid:2)ೆಂದು Oೇ’, =ಂfೋ (cid:26)yೕo zಂ(cid:20)ೆ Kಂ\ದHರು. ಸQಲ{ ಸಮಯದ ನಂತರ ಅಂಕ. ನನP zಂ(cid:1)Kಂದ ಬಂದು ನನP ಬ(cid:13)ೆ" 6ೕ(cid:15)ಂದ z|7 ಮು!"ದರು. ಆಗ (cid:2)ಾನು (cid:18)ಾ ೋ ಮಕIಳA ನನP zಂ(cid:1)Kಂದ Oೋಗು<ಾಗ ಟb ಆN(cid:20)ೆ ಎಂದು ಸುಮ-(cid:2)ಾ(cid:20)ೆನು. ನಂತರ ಅಂಕ. ನನP ಬ(cid:13)ೆ" 6ೕ(cid:15)ಂದVೇ ಗು2ಾ?ಂಗವನುP ಮು!" 2ೆ(cid:22)* Bಾ:ದರು. ನಂತರ ನನP }ೆ*" 6ೕVೆ (cid:23)ೈ[ಂದ ಮು!" 2ೆ(cid:22)* Bಾ:ದರು. (cid:2)ಾನು ಈ =}ಾರವನುP (cid:18)ಾ,ಗೂ Oೇಳ(cid:20)ೇ ಸುಮ-KದುH, ಬp(cid:19)fೇ 2ಾ!(cid:19) ಮುNದ ನಂತರ ಮ(cid:2)ೆRೆ <ಾಪ* ಬಂ(cid:20)ೆನು. ಇ(cid:20)ಾದ ನಂತರ (cid:18)ಾ ೋ ನಮ- ತಂ(cid:20)ೆ >ಾ[Rೆ ~ೕo Bಾ: =}ಾರ \’(cid:26)ದುH, ನಮ- ತಂ(cid:20)ೆ >ಾ[ಗಳA ನನPನುP =}ಾರ Bಾ:(cid:20)ಾಗ (cid:2)ಾನು ಬತ(cid:19)fೇ 2ಾ!(cid:19)ಯ(cid:15)(cid:16) ನfೆದ =}ಾರವನುP ಅವ,Rೆ \’(cid:26)(cid:20)ೆನು.” The afore extracted statement is of CW-1, the daughter of de-facto complainant. The allegation is that the daughter was playing and the petitioner was standing behind the window screen. After some time, the petitioner comes and touches hips of the daughter and has further touched the private parts of the daughter with the clothes on. This is one statement. The daughter of the complainant is 10 years old. The other statements are identical that the 14 petitioner has touched them in the same manner that he has touched the daughter of de-facto complainant. Reproducing those statements would only bulk the subject order. They are undoubtedly similar. The law is well settled that even one credible statement - if sufficient - can call for a trial. The contention is violation of the statute. No doubt the statute mandates that the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., should be as deposed by the victims, non recording of statements ‘as spoken’ will not ipso facto invalidate the proceedings, leading to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. One statement is enough for the petitioner to be directed to face trial. Therefore, the submission that statements recorded are contrary to Section 25 of the Act and, therefore, the entire proceedings get vitiated is a submission that is noted only to be rejected.

#10. The next submission is, violation of Section 26(1) and (4) of the Act. Section 26 reads as follows: “26. Additional provisions regarding statement to be recorded.—(1) The Magistrate or the police officer, as the case may be, shall record the statement as spoken by the child in the presence of the parents of the child or any other person in whom the child has trust or confidence. 15 (2) Wherever necessary, the Magistrate or the police officer, as the case may be, may take the assistance of a translator or an interpreter, having such qualifications, experience and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed, while recording the statement of the child. (3) The Magistrate or the police officer, as the case may be, may, in the case of a child having a mental or physical disability, seek the assistance of a special educator or any person familiar with the manner of communication of the child or an expert in that field, having such qualifications, experience and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed, to record the statement of the child. (4) Wherever possible, the Magistrate or the police officer, as the case may be, shall ensure that the statement of the child is also recorded by audio-video electronic means.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 26(1) mandates that the Magistrate or the Police Officer shall record the statement as spoken by the child, the answer is already rendered supra. Sub-section (4) mandates that it should be recorded by audio-video electronic means, this is undoubtedly desirable, if omitted, such omission cannot derail the proceedings at this stage. It is for the petitioner to take up this issue at the stage of trial. On the said non-recording, this Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to obliterate the proceedings. 16

#11. The other violation is Section 27 of the Act. Section 27 of the Act reads as follows: “27. Medical examination of a child.—(1) The medical examination of a child in respect of whom any this Act, shall, offence has been committed under notwithstanding that a First Information Report or complaint has not been registered for the offences under this Act, be conducted in accordance with Section 164-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (2) In case the victim is a girl child, the medical examination shall be conducted by a woman doctor. (3) The medical examination shall be conducted in the presence of the parent of the child or any other person in whom the child reposes trust or confidence. (4) Where, in case the parent of the child or other person referred to in sub-section (3) cannot be present, for any reason, during the medical examination of the child, the medical examination shall be conducted in the presence of a woman nominated by the head of the medical institution.” It deals with medical examination of the child. No doubt the girl children who have been victims in the case at hand have not offered themselves for medical examination, this again is not fatal. Law is settled that medical evidence though desirable, is not sine qua non, where other credible ocular evidence exits.

#12. The other violation is, violation of Section 35 of the Act. Section 35 reads as follows: 17 “35. Period for recording of evidence of child and disposal of case.—(1) The evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of thirty days of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence and reasons for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the Special Court. (2) The Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.” Section 35 mandates that the evidence of the child should be recorded within 30 days of taking of cognizance and the trial should complete within one year from the date of taking cognizance. The constitutional Courts all over the country have held that the procedure under Section 35 of the Act is directory and not mandatory, as there can be manifold factors which result in delay of taking cognizance or completion of trial within one year. This contention will not merit entertainment of the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act are all submissions which are noted only to be rejected, as the petitioner can always urge those contentions before the trial Court or in the event of necessity by filing an appeal before the appellate Court. 18

#13. The other submission is, that the order of taking cognizance does not bear application of mind. To buttress this submission reliance is placed on several judgments of the Apex Court. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in 2025 would answer the contention of the learned senior counsel with regard to taking of cognizance. In the case of PRAMILA DEVI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND1 the Apex Court holds as follows: “…. …. ….

#13. We have considered the matter in its entirety. Two basic issues arise for consideration.

#14. Firstly, whether Judicial Commissioner while taking cognizance has to record detailed reasons for taking cognizance? Secondly, whether the FIR itself was instituted with mala fide intention and was liable to be quashed? Additional discloses the Additional

#15. Coming to the first issue, we have no hesitation to record that the approach of the High Court was totally erroneous. Perusal of the Order taking cognizance dated Judicial 13.06.2019 Commissioner has stated that the ‘case diary and case record’ have been perused, which disclosed a prima facie case made out under Sections 498(A), 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(g) of the SC/ST Act against the accused including appellants. Further, we find the approach of the Additional Judicial Commissioner correct inasmuch as while taking cognizance, it firstly applied its mind to the materials before it to form an opinion as to whether any offence has been committed and thereafter went into the aspect of identifying the persons who appeared to have committed the offence. Accordingly, the process moves to 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 886 19 the next stage; of issuance of summons or warrant, as the case may be, against such persons.

#16. In the present case, we find that the Additional Judicial Commissioner has taken cognizance while recording a finding that - from a perusal of the case diary and case record, a prima facie case was made out against the accused, In Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424, this Court held that an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance cannot be faulted only because it was not a reasoned order; relevant paragraphs being as under: Appellants. including ‘14. Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated because it is imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report and the materials filed therewith.

#15. In Kanti Bhadra W.B. [(2000) 1 SCC 722 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 303] the following passage will be apposite in this context : (SCC p. 726, para 12) Shah v. State to avert all trial courts be “12. If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court procedures and to chalk out measures roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at snail-paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, down. We coming stages, 20 framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial.” (emphasis supplied)

#16. In Nagawwa v. VeerannaShivalingappaKonjal gi [(1976) 3 SCC 736 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 507] this Court held that it is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. It was further held that in deciding whether a process should be issued, the Magistrate can take into consideration improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. It was further held that : (SCC p. 741, para 5) “5. … Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even this Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused.”

#17. In Chief Imports &Exports v. Roshanlal SCC 139 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 788] this Court, in para 9, held as under : (SCC pp. 145-46) Agarwal [(2003) Controller 4 “9. In determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing Magistrate is not required to record reasons. This question was considered recently in U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 745] and after noticing the law laid down in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B. [(2000) 1 SCC 722 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 303] it was held as follows: (U.P. Pollution case [(2000) 3 SCC 745], SCC p. 749, para 6) the accused, the process 21 ‘6. The legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing process. There imposed on a Magistrate for requirement passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to the accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order.’” is no such

#18. In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Bhupendra Kumar Modi [(2009) 2 SCC 147 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 679] this Court, in para 23, held as under : (SCC p. 154) “23. It is a settled legal position that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.”

#19. This being the settled legal position, the order passed by the Magistrate could not be faulted with only on the ground that the summoning order was not a reasoned order.’ (emphasis supplied)

#17. The