‘No complaint for 5 years’: Karnataka High Court quashes POCSO case against mutt priest, cites ‘vaguely explained’ delay

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the appeal of the priest and directed that the criminal proceedings against him be quashed.

The priest had approached the Karnataka High Court seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings against him.

Assault began in 2017, complaint in 2024

The allegation in the complaint was that, in 2017, when the complainant was 14 years of age, she suffered from health problems. 

It was claimed that her parents, on the advice of her father’s friend, took her to the said temple where they became acquainted with the pontiff, who used certain kavades (cowry shells) to seek answers to their problems. He instructed them to perform Devi puja at home. 

It was stated that the complainant began to visit the mutt for the purpose of treatment during which time the petitioner allegedly took her alone and sexually assaulted her. The incident was said to have been repeated during their subsequent visits to the temple. 

In 2019, while at the temple, the girl mentioned that another accused assaulted her. It was added that the complainant even attempted suicide, but another person intervened and advised her to inform her parents. 

In March 2024, a complaint was registered in connection with the alleged incidents, the court noted, adding that the petitioner was stated to have been undergoing medical treatment in 2022 and came into contact with a doctor through an associate. 

Over time, disputes allegedly arose, with the petitioner claiming that certain persons later threatened and attempted to extort money from him by using private images. Following this, the petitioner lodged a complaint, leading to the registration of a criminal case against multiple persons for offences, including criminal conspiracy and extortion.

The petitioner claimed that the sexual assault case was filed just to wreak vengeance against him.

The pontiff and the other accused were arrested and later granted bail, following which multiple petitions were filed before the Karnataka High Court, including pleas seeking quashing of proceedings and cancellation of bail. 

‘Delay in registration of crime’

• The Karnataka High Court found that the delay in the case at hand is around seven years and if the event of 2019 is considered, it is five years. 
• It clarified that the delay in registering the crime had vitiated the registration and the proceedings in the aftermath. 
• The delay, which is totally unexplained or vaguely explained, would undoubtedly vitiate the entire proceedings in any given case, the Karnataka High Court held. 
• It highlighted that if the complaint had been registered in 2017 when the complainant was alleged to be 16 years of age, it would have been a circumstance altogether different. 
• The court observed that in cases resting solely on the victim’s statement, in the absence of medical or corroborative evidence, the testimony must be of sterling quality, failing which conviction under the POCSO Act cannot be sustained. 
• The Karnataka High Court thus allowed the appeal of the priest and directed that the criminal proceedings against him be quashed. 

Arguments 

Advocate Sandesh J Chouta, appearing for the petitioner and the other accused in the batch of pleas, contended before the Karnataka High Court that the complaint was registered after about seven years of the incident, that too for offences that would become punishable under the POCSO Act, only to wreak vengeance. It was argued that the complaint was set up by registering a crime without there being any substance whatsoever. 

The counsel added that if at all the priest indulged in such acts, nothing stopped the complainant, who is said to have informed her parents in 2019 itself, from filing the complaint, and she should not have waited five years to register the crime. 

He contended before the Karnataka High Court that once the crime is registered with a delay of seven years, it would naturally contain embellishments. It is a gross misuse of the POSCO Act or any other offence alleged in the case at hand, he said. 

Representing the complainant, advocate Akshay S contended that the chargesheet was filed after the investigation.