Madras High Court refuses to quash case against headmaster for failure to report POCSO case

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal charges against a school headmaster accused of failing to report sexual abuse that allegedly took place at the school to the authorities under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) [Aathimoolam v. State and Another]..Justice P Velmurugan noted that the headmaster (petitioner), being the school's guardian, is obligated to promptly report incidents under the POCSO Act to the District Child Protection Officer or the Police. However, the Court found that the petitioner had, prima facie, failed to fulfill this duty by not reporting the sexual abuse that an 8th standard student at the school was allegedly subjected to.“The Head Master is the guardian of the entire school. If any incident covered under POCSO Act has taken place, the same has to be immediately intimated either to the District Child Protection Officer or to the Police concerned whereas, in this case, the petitioner who was the Head Master of the School at the time of occurrence, neither informed about the sexual assault committed by the other accused to the authorities concerned nor taken any action against them,” the Court observed. .The petition before the Court was moved by one, Aathimoolam (petitioner), a headmaster of a school in Coimbatore, who was implicated under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act for his failure to report an offence under the POSCO Act to the concerned authorities.The police initially filed charges against two individuals accused of sexually abusing a minor girl at the school. While the petitioner was not named in the FIR, further investigation led to his inclusion in the charge sheet for failing to report the offence to the authorities.The petitioner argued that he had no knowledge of the abuse during his tenure. He contended no complaints were made by the victim at the time of the incidents in 2018, and that the complaint was filed only in 2022. He argued that delay in filing the charge sheet remained unexplained, raising questions about the prosecution's credibility..However, rejecting these contentions, the Court held that petitioner's failure to report the abuse constituted a prima facie violation of Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act.Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and directed the police to file a detailed report on the actions taken against him. The report is to include whether the police had recommended departmental proceedings or other disciplinary actions to the Education Department."Before parting with this case, the respondent police is directed to file a report before this Court on or before 12.12.2024 as to the actions taken by them against the petitioner herein i.e. whether the respondent police recommended the Education Department to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner or recommended for any other action against the petitioner," the Court orderedThe matter has been scheduled for further hearing on December 26, with directions to the police to submit the report by then..Advocate P Krishnamoorthy represented the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor S.Sugendran appeared for the respondents..[Read order]