Background Matrix
In the case of Independent Thought v Union of India & Anr, a request was made by Independent Thought, a non-governmental organisation (NGO). The argument sought a ruling that the limitations imposed by Sections 198(1) and 198(3) of the CrPC are superseded by Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act. In addition, the argument asked that the deadline for filing a complaint by a minor victim be extended until the victim is 20 years old, or two years after reaching legal adulthood.
Related Provision
In addition to prohibiting children from directly filing a complaint, Section 198(1) of the CrPC forbids courts from taking cognizance of offences relating to marriage where the complaint is not brought by an “aggrieved person.”
According to Section 198 (3), the court must first notify the person who has not been appointed as the guardian before granting authorization to file a complaint on behalf of juveniles or “lunatics.” The guardian must then have a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Observation of the Court
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justices Manmohan and Saurabh Banerjee held that Sections 198(1) and 198(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are superseded by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act’s requirements for mandatory reporting of crimes. Noting that the POCSO Act’s Section 42A clearly states that in the event of any inconsistency, the POCSO Act’s provisions shall take precedence As a result, the Court rules that the limitations imposed by Section 198(1) read along with Section 198(3) of CrPC shall be superseded by Section 19 read together with Section 21 of the POCSO Act. The Court additionally stated that there is no clear distinction between married and unmarried child rape victims.
The bench noted that POCSO is a special law and that it is well known that when a general law and a special law dealing with some similar issues are in question, harmonious construction is the rule adopted and applied, whereby the general law is impliedly repealed to the extent that it is dealt with by the special law. Regarding the question of extending the deadline, the High Court stated that Sections 472 and 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code already give courts the authority to do so if they are satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case call for it or that the delay has been adequately justified. The bench issued a decision that gives the trial court the authority to extend the statute of limitations in cases where child victims are unable to file their complaints in a timely manner.