New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR against AAP MP Swati Maliwal for allegedly disclosing the identity of a 14-year-old rape victim who succumbed to injuries.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said Maliwal’s claim that she was protected from prosecution as her actions were in good faith would have to be proved at an appropriate stage and there was no ground for closing the proceedings in the present plea.
Delhi Police registered the FIR against Maliwal in 2016 when she was the chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women, and said there was a blatant violation of provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, which protect the identity of a minor victim of sexual offence.
“Prima facie, offence under Section 74 read with Section 86 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is clearly disclosed. Insofar as the petitioner’s claim that she has protection under Section 100 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for her actions done in good faith is concerned, it is her defence which is required to be proved in accordance with law at the appropriate stage,” the court said on February 13.
The judge added, “Therefore, there is no ground for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings…” Maliwal sought a court-monitored probe in the matter, saying despite the minor’s death, the police did not invoke the murder charge in the FIR.
The court said the prayer was infructuous as a chargesheet was filed in the two cases in relation to the incident and the cases were pending trial.
It is now for the trial court to consider them and no fruitful purpose would be served by referring further investigation to an SIT, the court said.
The minor girl succumbed to injuries on July 23, 2016 in a hospital after being sexually assaulted by her neighbour who allegedly forced a corrosive substance down her throat and damaged her internal organs.
The police said Maliwal circulated a notice she had sent to the area deputy commissioner of police, in which she sought to know about the investigation in the rape case.
The notice, which was given to the print and electronic media, reportedly named victim.
The FIR alleged that the notice was “intentionally circulated” on various WhatsApp groups and shown by TV channels.
On account of the presence of the consent of the victim’s parents to disclose her name, Section 228A (Prohibition on disclosure of identity of the victim) of the IPC was dropped and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act was added in the case.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
