Discouraging a Complaint Is Not Itself a Non-Reporting Offence, Rules Bombay High Court

Discouraging a Complaint Is Not Itself a Non-Reporting Offence, Rules Bombay High Court in Rajendra Suryabhan Darade v. State of Maharashtra

Case: Rajendra Suryabhan Darade v. State of Maharashtra
Date of Judgment: 28 October 2026
Court: Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)
Coram: Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar

Court Observation

“The object of Section 19 is preventive as well as protective.”

Summary

The Bombay High Court has discharged Rajendra Suryabhan Darade, a villager booked under Section 21(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for allegedly failing to report a sexual offence against a child. The Court held that discouraging the parents of a minor from reporting an offence is not, by itself, an offence of non-reporting under Section 21, which punishes only the failure to report.

At the same time, the Court stressed that the duty to report under Section 19 applies to every person who gains the required knowledge of such an offence, and that no one may act as a private investigator, settle the matter by compromise, or wait for medical confirmation before reporting. On the material against Darade himself, however, the prosecution had not shown that he possessed the knowledge Section 19 requires or that his individual conduct, as distinct from the group present at the school meeting, made out the offence.

Key Holdings

  • Section 19 of the POCSO Act imposes a reporting duty on any person who gains the required knowledge of an offence against a child; it is not limited to parents, guardians, teachers or persons in positions of responsibility.
  • Section 21(1) punishes failure to discharge that reporting duty; it does not create a separate offence of threatening, intimidating or persuading another person not to lodge a complaint, though such conduct may fall under other penal provisions if their elements are proved.
  • The expression “any person” cannot be read independently of the requirement of knowledge; the nature and credibility of the information received determines whether the duty arose.
  • Mere presence at a later meeting, or association with others who allegedly discouraged the parents, is not enough to make a person criminally liable under Section 21(1) without material showing that person’s own knowledge and failure to report.

Directions Issued

  • The Special Judge’s order refusing discharge, so far as it concerned the applicant, was quashed and set aside, and the applicant was discharged from the offence under Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act.
  • The Special Court was given liberty to resort to the proper provisions of law and make the applicant an accused if any incriminating material surfaces against him during the trial.

Background

According to the prosecution, a third-standard student at a Zilla Parishad school told her mother on 1 August 2025 that a teacher had sexually assaulted her. The parents approached villagers, including Darade, the husband of the village Sarpanch, on 4 August 2025, and the group went to the school, where the teacher allegedly apologised. The parents filed the first information report on 7 August 2025. Darade sought discharge under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which the Special Judge, POCSO, Ahmednagar, rejected on 23 July 2026, leading to the revision before the High Court.

Related Articles

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.

Tags: , ,