The recent ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court established that parents are obligated to report any offense committed against their child under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act to the police or Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU).

Justice Deepak Gupta made this observation while declining to dismiss an application that was pending before the trial court. The application sought to include the mother of a child victim as an accused for her failure to report her son's sexual harassment to the police.

Following the suicide of a student from Faridabad's Delhi Public School in 2022, a plea was filed before the trial court to include the mother as an accused in a criminal case related to the child's death. This plea was based on the allegation that the mother had purportedly neglected to report her son's sexual harassment to the police.

The Court emphasized that under the POCSO Act, any individual who has reason to believe that an offense against a child is likely to occur or has knowledge of such an offense having been committed is obligated to report it to the police or Special Juvenile Police Unit (SPJU).

The Court elaborated that Section 21 of the POCSO Act mandates punishment for failure to report a case, regardless of the individual's affiliation with an institution, parental status, or relationship with the child. These remarks were made in the context of a case concerning the death of a 16-year-old who died by suicide in February 2022. In his suicide note, the Class X student had attributed the extreme step to the school authorities. Subsequently, the student's mother filed a complaint with the police seeking action against the school management.

She alleged that the students at the school would harass the victim “by calling him gay” but no action was taken by the school management.

Following the suicide, the police registered a case against the school Principal, Surjeet Khanna, and Headmistress, Mamta Gupta, under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) and provisions of the POCSO Act. After the High Court dismissed her petition seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR), Khanna subsequently filed an application before the trial court, seeking cognizance against the victim's mother for allegedly failing to report the offenses to the police.

On July 18, 2020, the trial court directed the victim's mother to respond to the application. Subsequently, she petitioned the High Court seeking to quash this application. The High Court, upon review, concluded that the mother was obligated under the POCSO Act to report the offenses to the police or Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU).

In this context, the Court also expressed its opinion that the email written by the petitioner to the school, informing them about the bullying and sexual harassment experienced by her son, indicates that she was aware of the commission of offenses under the POCSO Act well before she provided this information to the school authorities.

The Court dismissed the argument that the mother fulfilled her duty by informing the school in line with its Child Protection Policy. It asserted that statutory provisions would take precedence over any school policy.

Nevertheless, the Court also remarked that the mother's petition was evidently premature, as no decision had been made yet on Khanna's application. It emphasized that the trial court must carefully consider whether to summon her as a potential accused or not.

Meanwhile, the High Court also rejected the petition filed by Khanna challenging the trial court's decision to initially issue a notice to the victim's mother regarding her application. Khanna argued that there was no prescribed procedure for serving notice on the proposed accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Section 193 of the CrPC, or Section 33 of the POCSO Act. Dismissing this argument as lacking merit, the Court asserted that each case possesses its unique facts and circumstances, which may necessitate the concerned court to adopt a procedure not prohibited by law.

Advocate Rajesh Lamba represented the accused Surjeet Khanna.

Additional Advocate General Randhir Singh represented the State of Haryana.

Advocate ADS Sukhija was an amicus curiae in the case.