Summoning Under POCSO Act Impermissible When Allegations In Complaint Are Absent From Pre-Summoning Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that an accused cannot be summoned under Section 354A IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act merely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint when such allegations are not supported by the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The Court observed that if the ingredients of the alleged offences are absent from the statements of...
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that an accused cannot be summoned under Section 354A IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act merely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint when such allegations are not supported by the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The Court observed that if the ingredients of the alleged offences are absent from the statements of the complainant and witnesses, summoning under those provisions would not be justified.
Justice Siddhartha Sah was hearing a petition seeking quashing of a summoning order and the proceedings in a complaint case under Sections 323, 354A, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act. The complaint alleged that when the complainant was on her way to school, the applicants abused her, outraged her modesty, assaulted her and threatened her father when he intervened. On the basis of the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the trial court summoned the applicants to face trial.
During the hearing, the complainant's counsel fairly conceded that although the complaint contained allegations regarding outraging the modesty of the complainant, those allegations were missing from the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. It was also conceded that there were no clear statements in the said depositions regarding sexual harassment with sexual intent so as to attract Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
The Court noted that the complainant, the witnesses and the Medical Officer had supported the allegations relating to assault and injuries. It therefore held that the trial court had rightly summoned the applicants under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. However, the Court found that although the complaint contained allegations regarding touching the complainant's private parts, no such statement had been made either by the complainant under Section 200 CrPC or by the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC.
“… though there are certain allegations in the complaint regarding touching the private parts of the complainant, no such statement has been made by the complainant in her statements recorded under Sections 200 or in the statements of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Hence, in such an eventuality, the summoning of the applicants under Section 354A IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act would not be attracted,” the Court observed.
The Court further observed that none of the ingredients of Section 354A(1) IPC or Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act were disclosed from the statements recorded during the inquiry, even if those statements were taken at their face value.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the petition and quashed the summoning order to the extent that it summoned the applicants under Section 354A IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Priyansh Atray & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. [Criminal Misc. Application No. 764 of 2020]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (UK) 65