Notice to ex-SHO for bypassing Pocso provisions
The court also rejected the bail plea of the accused, underlining the need for a thorough investigation.
It was revealed that the FIR had been lodged solely under sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Penal Code, bypassing the more stringent and applicable provisions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act.
Presiding judge Ajit Kumar Sharma noted that despite the clear involvement of a minor victim — confirmed in the court by additional public prosecutor Suresh Kumar Singh — police failed to invoke the relevant sections.
The court also directed that the copies of the notice be forwarded to the deputy inspector general of Shahabad range and superintendent of police for departmental action.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Not 18
Why the Rules Around Teen Love Are So Complicated In India, the law says that anyone under 18 is a child. And if anyone has sex with someone under 18, even if both people agree, it's still a crime. This is part of a law called POCSO, which is meant to protect kids from sexual abuse. But here's the tricky part: teenagers often have crushes and sometimes even relationships. They might agree to be close to each other. So, is that always abuse? The law doesn't leave any room to understand if both were okay with it or if one was forced. That's why earlier this year, the Supreme Court said maybe we should think about changing the law a bit – at least when it's two teenagers close in age. But the government disagreed, saying that making exceptions would weaken the law and make it harder to protect kids. Still, some strange cases are popping up. Like a 40-year-old teacher in Mumbai who had a relationship with her 16-year-old student. The court gave her bail, saying it looked like the student had agreed. But how can we be sure it was real consent when the adult is so much older and in a position of power? Another case involved a 23-year-old tutor who was in a relationship with her 13-year-old student and even became pregnant. She also got bail. These cases show how confusing the idea of consent can be, especially when there's a big age gap. In other countries, the age of consent is usually 16. That means people below 16 can't legally agree to sex, no matter what they say. For example, in the UK, a teacher who had a baby with her 15-year-old student was clearly seen as an abuser. In the US, a famous case from the 1990s involved a woman teacher who had children with her 13-year-old student – even though they later married, she still went to jail because it was wrong when it started. So, should India lower the age of consent to make things clearer? Maybe to 16 like in many other countries? That's the big question. Right now, the line is drawn at 18, and it doesn't matter what the teen thinks or feels. But maybe it should – at least in cases where both people are young and close in age. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
United News of India
3 hours ago
- United News of India
No plan for IREL, HCL, NALCO merger into NCMC: Centre
New Delhi, July 24 (UNI) The Central government is yet to chalk out a plan for the merger of Indian Rare Earth Limited (IREL), Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL) and National Aluminum Company Limited (NALCO) into a 'National Critical Minerals Corporation', Union Minister for Coal and Mines Kishan Reddy told the Lok Sabha. The union minister replying to a query said the Central Government through a notification on November 22, 2010 appointed a Commission of Inquiry under the Chairmanship of Justice M. B. Shah for the purpose of making inquiry of illegal mining of iron ore and manganese ore in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or other rules or licenses or guidelines issued there under referred to as illegal mining. The Justice M.B. Shah Commission submitted the report to the Ministry of Mines, which was subsequently laid in the Parliament, the minister said. The Section 23C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act, 1957 empowers the State Government to frame rules to prevent illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and for purposes connected therewith. Therefore, the control of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and purposes connected therewith is primarily the responsibility of the State Government, added the minister. The Central Government supports and augments these efforts through policy initiatives from time to time. Some of the steps taken by the Central Government for the prevention and control of the frauds like fake transportation permits, under invoiced exports etc. are as under the MMDR Act, 1957 was amended through the MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015, wherein Section 30B and 30C read with Section 21 and 23C, inter-alia, provide stringent punitive provisions for illegal mining, transportation and storage, added the minister. Altogether, 21 State Governments including Odisha have framed rules under section 23C of MMDR Act,1957 to curb illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. Further 22 State Governments including Odisha have set up Task Forces, specially constituted to control illegal mining and review the action taken by member departments for checking the illegal mining, transportation and storage activities, added the minister. The Ministry of Mines launched the Mining Surveillance System (MSS) in October 2016 through IBM. The MSS system detects likely incidences of illegal mining using space technology. The Ministry of Mines also issued guidelines on 3 October 2023 to major mineral rich States for prevention of misclassification of grades of iron ore and other minerals by using technology, added the minister. UNI XC SSP
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Parliament security breach case: Delhi HC seeks police reply on bail plea of two accused
The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked Delhi Police to respond to a bail plea of two accused in the December 2023 Parliament security breach case. During the hearing, the counsel for the accused – Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D – told a Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur that the act of opening smoke canisters inside Parliament while sloganeering 'did not amount to terrorist act' as the smoke was not obnoxious and the intention of the accused was to only 'highlight unemployment and not create terror'. The Bench, however, remarked, 'The best way to create terror in India is to disrupt Parliament. You disrupted Parliament.' It asked the Delhi Police to file a status report on Mr. Sharma's bail plea and posted the hearing for October 8, when it would also take up Mr. Manoranjan D's petition, for which it had issued a notice earlier. The duo had challenged a trial court's order denying them bail. Mr. Sharma contended that he was entitled to be released on bail on the grounds of parity with the other two accused who were already on bail. Mr. Manoranjan D called the allegations against him 'vague' and alleged that Delhi Police had 'wrongly attributed' the charge under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against him. The Bench said there was no parity since those granted bail had protested outside Parliament, whereas the present accused were inside it. In a major security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack on December 13, 2023, accused Mr. Sharma and Mr. Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, opened canisters filled with yellow gas, and sloganeered before some MPs overpowered them. Around the same time, the other two accused – Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad – allegedly opened coloured gas canisters outside the Parliament premises and raised slogans. The High Court granted bail to Ms. Azad and another accused, Mahesh Kumawat, in July.
