Karnataka High Court refuses to quash FIR against school principals for allegedly suppressing sexual assault complaint by minor against roommate

Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by the school principal, assistant principal/administrator and child welfare officer challenging the criminal proceedings against them in June. | Photo credit: File photo

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash the criminal case against three administrators of a high school in Udupi district. They were accused of failing to report and allegedly attempting to suppress a minor’s complaint of being sexually assaulted by his hostel roommate, in violation of mandatory reporting obligations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO).

Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by the school principal, assistant principal/administrator and child welfare worker challenging the criminal proceedings against them in June for allegedly failing to comply with statutory obligations under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act and attempting to suppress the alleged offence.

Duty to report

“The obligation to report is immediate, absolute and does not allow for any discretion. There is no room for discretion, no room for internal investigation, no room for institutional image management, and certainly no license to dilute, embellish or alter the complaint in an effort to protect the institution’s reputation, as is prima facie evident in the present case,” the court said.

The incident allegedly took place in the morning hours of June 2 this year at the school dormitory. According to the complaint, the victim, a Class 10 student, immediately informed the invigilator and subsequently approached the higher authorities.

Suppression attempt

However, instead of reporting the incident to the police under the POCSO Act, the school authorities tried to cover it up. The complaint was eventually filed by the victim’s father, alleging that a child welfare officer destroyed his son’s original written complaint and forced him to submit a new statement portraying the incident as a “consensual act” stemming from an argument between two students. The officials are also accused of threatening the victim and pressuring him to change his version of events.

The petitioners argued that Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which penalizes non-reporting of offences, is a bailable offense with a short sentence of up to one year, but the court said that “the seriousness of the offense cannot be judged only on the basis of the prescribed penalty”.

“The seriousness of the offense is not measured only by the amount of the prescribed punishment, but by the sanctity of the duty that has been breached. The provisions of Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act are not decorative provisions placed in the statute book, they form the very backbone of the legislative framework to ensure that offenses against children are detected without the slightest delay…” the court said.

The prima facie material currently available shows that the offenses committed by the petitioners are punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, the court said, pointing out that whether further offenses will emerge or whether they will be acquitted will be decided only after the investigation.

Published – 11 Jul 2026 19:50 IST