Sunday, October 20, 2024
HomeLawBombay High Court seeks Commissioner response in plea against circular requiring ACP,...

Bombay High Court seeks Commissioner response in plea against circular requiring ACP, DCP approval for registering POCSO cases

The plea, filed through Advocate Arjun Kadam, took exception to the circular on the following grounds:

1. At the point of FIR registration, all that is required is to determine if the information provided ex facie exposes the commission of a cognizable offence. If the information provided is discovered to be fraudulent following an inquiry, the complainant might be prosecuted for submitting a fake FIR.

2. Information being likely to be false can be no ground for not registering the offence as the police have enough powers and discretion to defer the arrest or to not effect any arrest at all, in cases where the allegations levelled in the FIR are believed to be false.

3. Section 21 of the POCSO Act makes the failure to register an offence under the Act a punishable offence. As such, the compulsion imposed by the legislative mandate has been side lined by the Commissioner and has instead vested absolute discretion with the ACP and then the DCP who would decide whether the offence should be registered or not.

4. Section 22 of the Act deals with eventualities of the complaint being a false complaint and addresses the apprehension of the respondent. A similar provision is contained in the Indian Penal Code as well

5. The circular makes a reference to the Lalita Kumari judgment, but ignores the fact that the issuance of the circular is in itself a violation of the principles laid down in that judgment.

6. The circular goes on to amend parliamentary legislation, which is undoubtedly beyond the competence of the Commissionerate of Police, Greater Mumbai. The issuance of the circular thus suffers from lack of legislative competence.

7. The circular would apply to all offences under the POCSO Act, irrespective of whether the facts require immediate provisions for care and custody of the child victim or otherwise.

8. The circular is arbitrary, perverse and contemptuous to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court, and is also unconstitutional to the provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Source: Barandbench

RELATED ARTICLES
- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Recent Comments