The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP and former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) Chairperson Swati Maliwal seeking to quash an FIR registered against her in 2016 for allegedly disclosing the identity of a 14-year-old rape survivor.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while upholding the validity of the FIR, emphasized that any form of media or communication revealing the identity or details that could lead to the identification of a child in conflict with the law or in need of care and protection constitutes an offense under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The court stated, “There is no ground for quashing FIR No. 356/2016 and the proceedings consequent thereto.”

The case originated from an FIR filed by a 14-year-old girl and her mother, alleging kidnapping, confinement, and sexual assault. However, the girl later recorded a statement under Section 164 of the CrPC contradicting the allegations, leading to the accused securing bail in January 2016. Later that month, she wrote to the Delhi Chief Minister, alleging coercion to change her statement, but no action was taken.

On May 15, 2016, a day before a court hearing, the girl went missing. Her mother reported receiving threats from the accused, prompting a missing person report and another FIR on May 19. The girl was found on May 26 but refused a medical examination and was placed in a Children’s Home.

The next day, she gave another statement under Section 164 CrPC, denying the allegations. However, in a later dying declaration to DCW coordinators, she alleged police coercion.

After being sent home due to health concerns, her father took her to LNJP Hospital, where doctors reported a history of sexual assault and symptoms of corrosive poisoning. Despite additional charges under Section 376 IPC and POCSO against the accused, no separate investigation into the alleged poisoning was conducted.

On August 3, 2016, Maliwal sought an independent SIT probe and victim compensation. During the proceedings, a charge sheet was filed against her for allegedly revealing the victim’s identity. Maliwal defended her actions as being in good faith, but the court found prima facie evidence under Sections 74 and 86 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The court observed that a notice issued to the SHO was published in a WhatsApp group of the DCW by its Public Relations Officer, Bhupender Singh. This notice was subsequently circulated to news channels, disclosing the victim’s name. The court ruled that the case required further proof at a later stage and refused to quash the FIR.

For Petitioner: Advocates Arun Khatri, Anushka Bhalla, Shelly Dixit, and Tracy Sebastian
For Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Bhandari

Case Title: Delhi Commission for Women v. State (2025:DHC:1052)