Quashment of Criminal Proceedings – PoCSO Act, 2012 – Section 23(4) – Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Section 83(2) – Indian Penal Code – Sections 120B, 465, 419, 109, 471, 201 – Media Broadcast – Public Interest Journalism.
Petitioners, accused of violating PoCSO Act, JJ Act, and IPC provisions by telecasting a program on drug abuse, sought quashment of final report and proceedings. Allegations involved using a minor’s doctored voice from a prior PoCSO case and impersonating her with another child to defame the government.
Held: No prima facie offense under Section 23(4) of PoCSO Act as survivor’s identity not disclosed; doctored voice did not constitute “other particulars” leading to identification. Use of a minor in the program was not illegal under Section 83(2) of JJ Act. IPC charges of forgery, conspiracy, and abetment unsustainable absent intent to harm. Selective prosecution against petitioners’ channel suggested mala fide intent. Program aimed to raise public awareness about drug abuse, protected under Articles 14 and 19. Final report and proceedings quashed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Media urged to report responsibly, balancing both sides. [2024 KHC OnLine 7251
Case Citation: 2025:KER:30672, CRL.M.C. No. 9008 of 2024, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Court: High Court of Kerala
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen
Date of Judgment: April 11, 2025
Parties:
- Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1-6: Sindhu S., Shajahan P., Noufal V., Neeli R. Nair, Vipin Muraleedharan, Vineeth Jose
- Respondent: State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor
Counsel:
- For Petitioners: Advs. B. Raman Pillai (Senior), V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar, V. John Sebastian Ralph, Victor George V.M., Preeja P. Vijayan, Smitha (Ezhupunna), Pavan Rose Johnson, Vandana Bhat T.V.
- For Respondent: Shri P. Narayanan (Special Public Prosecutor), Shri Sajju S. (Senior Public Prosecutor)
Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Facts:
- The petitioners, accused in S.C. No. 575/2024 before the Additional Sessions Court (PoCSO), Kozhikode, sought to quash the final report and proceedings in Crime No. 101/2023 of Vellayil Police Station.
- The case arose from a program titled “Narcotics is a Dirty Business,” telecast by Asianet News on November 4, 2022, and uploaded on YouTube on November 10, 2022.
- The prosecution alleged that the petitioners conspired to defame the ruling government by forging a video featuring a minor’s voice from a prior PoCSO case (Crime No. 989/2022, Kannur), impersonating the survivor using another child (daughter of Accused No. 4), and failing to report a PoCSO offense, violating:
- Sections 120B, 465, 419, 109, 471, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC);
- Section 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act);
- Section 23(4) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (PoCSO Act).
- The petitioners argued the program aimed to raise awareness about drug abuse among youth, with no intent to disclose the survivor’s identity. They claimed the voice used was doctored, the video blurred, and disclaimers issued to protect the survivor’s identity, unlike other channels that aired unedited content without prosecution.
- The prosecution contended that using the survivor’s original voice led to her identification by parents and teachers, violating PoCSO Act provisions, and that impersonating the survivor with another minor breached the JJ Act.
Issues:
- Whether the prosecution’s allegations prima facie established offenses under the IPC, JJ Act, and PoCSO Act, warranting a trial, or whether the proceedings should be quashed for lack of merit or mala fide intent.
- Whether the use of a doctored voice and impersonation constituted offenses under Section 23(4) of the PoCSO Act or Section 83(2) of the JJ Act.
- Whether the petitioners’ intent to raise public awareness about drug abuse negated criminal liability.
Holding:
- The High Court quashed the final report and all proceedings in S.C. No. 575/2024, finding no prima facie case for the alleged offenses.
Reasoning:
- PoCSO Act Violation (Section 23):
- Section 23(2) prohibits disclosing a child’s identity through name, address, photograph, or other particulars. The prosecution alleged the survivor’s original voice was used, enabling identification.
- The court found the survivor’s statement (CW3) confirmed the voice was “jumbled,” indicating it was doctored, not original. Laboratory analysis was inconclusive, and the video itself declared the voice altered.
- No other identifiers (name, photo, school details) were disclosed. The court held that a doctored voice did not constitute “other particulars” leading to identity disclosure under Section 23(2), thus no offense under Section 23(4) was made out.
- JJ Act Violation (Section 83(2)):
- The prosecution claimed using the daughter of Accused No. 4 to impersonate the survivor violated Section 83(2), which penalizes using children for illegal activities.
- The court ruled that producing a news program to highlight drug abuse was not inherently illegal. The minor’s identity was not disclosed, and her use in the video (shown from behind) did not constitute an illegal activity, negating Section 83(2) applicability.
- IPC Offenses:
- Forgery (Sections 465, 471): Forgery requires intent to cause damage or injury. The court found the petitioners’ intent was to alert the public about drug abuse, not to harm. The doctored voice lacked malicious intent, failing to meet forgery criteria.
- Cheating by Impersonation (Section 419): The prosecution could not justify this charge, and the court found it inapplicable.
- Criminal Conspiracy and Abetment (Sections 120B, 109): Absent a primary offense (forgery or PoCSO violation), conspiracy and abetment charges collapsed.
- Causing Disappearance of Evidence (Section 201): With no underlying offense, this charge was unsustainable.
- Mala Fide Prosecution:
- The court noted other channels aired unedited survivor content without prosecution, suggesting selective targeting of Asianet News, possibly due to its critical stance against the government.
- Citing Xxxx v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC OnLine 7251), the court emphasized its duty to quash frivolous cases driven by ulterior motives.
- Public Interest and Media Freedom:
- The program’s 20-minute runtime focused broadly on drug abuse, using the survivor’s voice for only 11 seconds, supporting its public interest objective.
- The court recognized media’s role as the “fourth pillar of democracy” under Articles 14 and 19, urging responsible journalism but appreciating the petitioners’ efforts to combat drug abuse.
Disposition:
- The petition was allowed, and the final report and proceedings in S.C. No. 575/2024 were quashed.
Key Legal Principles:
- Courts must scrutinize allegations for prima facie validity under Section 528 of BNSS, quashing cases with ulterior motives or insufficient evidence.
- PoCSO Act’s identity disclosure provisions require clear evidence of intent or effect; doctored content may not qualify.
- Media freedom is protected, but channels must balance public interest with ethical reporting, including both sides of a story.
Significance:
- Reinforces judicial oversight to prevent misuse of PoCSO and other laws against media for political vendettas.
- Clarifies that public interest journalism, absent malicious intent, does not attract criminal liability under stringent statutes like PoCSO or JJ Act.