Delhi HC refuses to quash FIR against Swati Maliwal for revealing identity of 14-year-old rape victim

New Delhi

The Delhi high court has refused to quash the FIR against former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) and Aam Aadmi Party parliamentarian Swati Maliwal for allegedly revealing the identity of a 14-year-old rape victim to the media.

A bench of justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while arriving at her prima facie view, took note of Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act—which punishes disclosure of the identity of a child victim of certain offences—and the fact that the circulation of notice issued to the station house officer (SHO) was not under challenge.

​“It is not under challenge that a notice was issued to the SHO which got published on the WhatsApp Group of DCW by Sh. Bhupender Singh, public relations officer, which later got it circulated to the news channels wherein the name of the prosecutrix was disclosed. Prima facie, offence under Section 74 read with Section 86 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is clearly disclosed. Therefore, there is no ground for quashing the FIR and the proceedings consequent thereto,” the bench said in its February 13 verdict, released on Wednesday.

The FIR was initially registered by the Delhi Police under Section 228A (disclosure of identity of certain victims) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in July 2016, which was later changed to charges under sections 74 (prohibition on disclosure of identity of children) and 86 (classification of offence and designated court) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Also read: Swati Maliwal spotted at Delhi CM Rekha Gupta's oath ceremony: ‘I hope she…’

In her petition, Maliwal sought the charge sheet be quashed and also other proceedings emanating therefrom, contending that the police, instead of focusing on the rape case, registered the FIR against her to overawe, and intimidate the statutory body and keep the flawed investigation into the case under the wraps. It added that she had not revealed the victim’s name and address in any forum, and that the FIR was registered maliciously.

The Delhi Police submitted that there had been a blatant violation of Section 74 of the JJ Act and the FIR was rightly registered.

In its ruling, justice Krishna said police had followed due procedure in the investigation, shooting down Maliwal’s contention that the charge sheet and the consequent cognisance were “bad in law” since the police failed to seek the court’s permission under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for carrying an investigation under Section 74 of the JJ Act—a non-cognisable offence in which the police requires court’s permission to arrest a person.

Section 155 of the CrPC has now been replaced by Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Rejecting her contention, the judge took note of the fact that the investigating officer had filed an application seeking the court’s permission, but the same was disposed of by a city court because no further permission was required since the offence subsequently disclosed was non-cognisable.

“In these facts, it cannot be said that due procedure for conducting investigation has not been followed. Therefore, the objection on behalf of the petitioner that the cognisance on the charge sheet is bad in law is not tenable,” the court maintained.