Gujarat High Court refuses to quash FIR against advocate in POCSO case, stressing “Being an advocate, you can’t act irrationally or run after publicity” in victim identity disclosure.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
GUJARAT: The Gujarat High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against an advocate accused of disclosing the identity of a minor victim in violation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Court held that a prima facie case was made out and that the investigation must proceed despite the advocate’s claim that the disclosure was inadvertent and without mala fide intention.
Case Background
The matter arose from an FIR lodged by the father of a minor girl, alleging that the advocate compelled his daughter to give media bites and disclosed her name, thereby violating statutory prohibitions against revealing the identity of victims of sexual offences.
The FIR invoked:
- Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act, 2012, which prohibits disclosure of the identity of a child victim, and
- Section 74(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, similarly protects the privacy of children.
According to the prosecution, the advocate not only disclosed the girl’s identity but also encouraged her to speak on social media, providing details that could lead to her identification.
Court’s Observations
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai observed that the applicant, being a professional and an officer of the Court, was expected to be fully aware of the legal prohibitions against disclosing the identity of victims of sexual offences.
The Bench stated,
“Being an advocate, it was expected of the present applicant to be well versed with the legal provisions and the sections of the relevant Acts, and not to act absolutely irrationally or run after publicity by giving media bites on social media, that too by disclosing the name of the victim girl.”
The Court rejected the plea that the absence of mala fide intention should absolve the applicant, stressing that:
“Whether the aforesaid act was done with a bona fide intention, with a malafide intention, with a view to commit an offence, or it was an inadvertent mistake… is a subject matter of investigation or trial… but a prima facie reading of the FIR constitutes an offence.”
Advocate’s Argument and Court’s Rejection
The applicant had argued that the disclosure was inadvertent and without malicious intent. However, the Court clarified that such factors could only be considered during investigation or trial, not at the stage of quashing an FIR.
Importantly, the Court underlined that merely because the accused is an advocate does not entitle him to special consideration in matters of statutory violations.
The Gujarat High Court concluded that the allegations in the FIR disclosed the commission of an offence and refused to interfere with the ongoing investigation. The Bench upheld the principle that the privacy and dignity of minor victims must be safeguarded at all costs and dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Aftabhusen Ansari
Respondents: APP Ronak Raval
Case Title:
XYZ Vs The State Of Gujarat
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 18068 of 2025
Read Order: