Mandatory reporting of offences under POCSO Act overrides restrictions under Section 198 CrPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that provisions for mandatory reporting of offences under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act shall override the restrictions imposed by Sections 198(1) and 198 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [Independent Thought v Union of India & Anr]..While Section 198(1) of the CrPC bars courts from taking cognisance of offences related to marriage when the complaint is not made by ‘aggrieved person’, it also bars minors from making the complaint directly.Section 198 (3) provides that when a complaint is sought to be made on behalf of minors or ‘lunatics’ by a person who has not been made their guardian, the court shall first issue notice to such guardian and give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard before grating permission..A division bench of Justices Manmohan and Saurabh Banerjee noted that Section 42A of the POCSO Act specifically provides that in case of any inconsistency, the provisions of POCSO Act shall have an overriding effect.“Consequently, this Court declares that Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act shall override the restrictions imposed under Section 198(1) read with Section 198(3) of CrPC,” the bench said.The Court further said that there is no distinct category within child victims of rape as those who are married and those who are not.However, the bench clarified that it has not dealt with the larger issue of ‘marital rape’ of an adult woman in the present proceedings..The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) Independent Thought. The plea sought a declaration that Section 19 read with Section 21 of POCSO Act override the restrictions imposed under Sections 198(1) and 198(3) of the CrPC.The plea further sought a direction to extend the limitation to file the complaint by a minor victim till she completes two years of attaining majority, in other words till the child victim turns 20..After considering the case, the bench said that POCSO is a special law and “it is well established that when a general law and a special law dealing with some common aspects are in question, the rule adopted and applied is one of harmonious construction whereby the general law, to the extent dealt with by the special law, is impliedly repealed”.On the issue of extending the limitation, the High Court said that Sections 472 and 473 CrPC already empower the Courts to extend the period of limitation, if it is satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case necessitate extension of the period of limitation or that the delay has been explained properly.“Accordingly, in appropriate cases where minor victims are not able to file their complaints within time, the Trial Court has the power to extend the period of limitation, if it deems appropriate,” the Court held..Advocate Vikram Srivastava and Shalu appeared for the petitioner.Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Monika Arora along with advocates Yash Tyagi and Subhrodeep appeared for the Central government..[Read Order]