Madras High Court Declines To Interfere With Order To Register FIR Against News Channel For Allegedly Revealing Identity Of POCSO Victim

Justice P Velmurugan noted that no prejudice would be caused to the news channel if an FIR was registered and an investigation was carried on by the jurisdictional police. The court added that mere irregularity by the Special Judge could not be treated as an illegality. Further, considering the seriousness of the offence, the court was not inclined to set aside the order or stay the investigation.

“Further, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by registering the case and investigation to be conducted by the jurisdictional police. It will reveal whether the petitioner had violated Section 19 of POCSO Act and also Section 23(iv) of POCSO Act. There is no abuse of process of law. The error committed by the learned Special Judge is mere irregularity, which cannot be treated as illegality. Considering the serious nature of the offence and the responsibility for the petitioner towards the society, this Court is not inclined to set aside the order passed by the Special Court and also to grant stay of investigation of the case registered against the petitioner,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea filed by NewsTamil 24x7 represented by its Editor, seeking to set aside the order of the Special Judge directing the All Women Police Station, Vadapalani to register FIR against the news channel for allegedly revealing a POCSO victim's identity.

It was argued that the Special Judge's order was erroneous. It was submitted that the Special Judge's order directing the jurisdictional police to register FIR was against the statute when the Special Court had jurisdiction to take cognisance of the complaint under Section 33(1) of the POCSO Act. it was submitted that the Special Court had travelled beyond the scope of the prayer and had given directions mechanically without any application of mind.

It was submitted that the defacto complainant who had been facing prosecution in the case had preferred the complaint stating that the news channel had violated the provisions of the POCSO Act by revealing the identity of the victim and her family. The news channel argued that as per Section 19 of the POCSO Act, any person who apprehended that an offence under the Act was likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence had been committed, should report the same to the Special Juvenile Police or the local police who shall then register the FIR immediately.

The news agency argued that there was nothing in the complaint to show that the complainant had invoked Section 19 of the POCSO Act. It was submitted that since the complainant had chosen not to invoke Section 19 of the Act, the Special court should have taken cognisance under Section 33(1) of the Act instead of forwarding the complaint to the Commissioner of Police. It was also argued that they had not revealed the identity of the victim or her family and there was no violation of the Act.

The de facto complainant, on the other hand, contended that there was no bar on the Special Court to give the direction. It was submitted that when the Special Court is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out, it was taken cognisance of the complaint. However, if the Special court feels that an investigation would allow the collection of materials to aid the court to meet the ends of justice, the court could give directions to the Investigating Agency. It was argued that since the issue was regarding publication of the victim's identity, it was difficult to establish the same by the victim or the complainant, and hence, the Special Court thought it fit to entrust the work to the investigating agency to collect materials.

The court agreed and noted that there was no bar for the Special Judge to forward the complaint to the police officials to register the case and conduct an investigation. The court noted that the prosecution was expected to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and it was difficult to substantiate the case by the victim alone.

“As per criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is very difficult for the victim to substantiate the allegation. The Special Court is also empowered to take cognizance of the offence, upon a police report. On the abovesaid facts, this Court finds that there is no bar to direct the Investigating Officer to register the case and to investigate the matter,” the court said.

Thus, finding no merits in the criminal revision petition, the court dismissed the same and directed the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file a final report as early as possible, preferably within two months. The court also directed the Special Court to complete the trial within the stipulated time.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Babu

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. N. S. Siva Kumar, Mr. S. Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: News Tamil 24x7 v. Shruthi Thilak and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 89

Case No: Crl. R.C.No.2330 of 2024