The court found prima facie evidence against Maliwal, citing her office’s communication leading to the victim’s identity being revealed via news channels. The FIR was upheld, and her petition was dismissed.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP and former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) Chairperson Swati Maliwal. She had requested the court to cancel an FIR registered against her in 2016. The FIR accused her of revealing the identity of a 14-year-old rape survivor.
The case was heard by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who stated:
“From the bare perusal of this Section, it is evident that if any Newspaper, Magazine, News-Sheet or Audio-Visual Media or other forms of communication disclose the name, address or school or any particulars which may lead to the identification of the child in conflict with law or child in need of care and protection, would be an offence punishable with the term that may extend to six months or fine which may extend to two lakhs in the present case…Therefore, there is no ground for quashing of FIR No. 356/2016 and the proceedings consequent thereto.”
Background
The case started when a 14-year-old girl and her mother filed an FIR, accusing a man of kidnapping, confining, and sexually assaulting her. However, on January 5, 2016, the girl gave a statement under Section 164 CrPC contradicting her FIR, which led to the accused getting bail on January 12, 2016.
Later, on January 25, 2016, she wrote to the Delhi Chief Minister, alleging that she was forced to change her statement, but no action was taken.
Events Leading to FIR Against Maliwal
- May 15, 2016: A day before a court hearing, the girl went missing.
- May 19, 2016: Her mother filed a missing person report, stating that the accused was threatening them.
- May 26, 2016: The police found the girl, but she refused a medical examination and was placed in a Children’s Home.
- May 27, 2016: She gave another statement under Section 164 CrPC, denying the allegations. However, later, she gave a dying declaration to DCW coordinators, saying the police forced her to change her statement.
- May 31, 2016: Due to health issues, she was sent back home.
- June 30, 2016: Her father took her to LNJP Hospital, where doctors noted a history of sexual assault and symptoms of corrosive poisoning. A female officer took charge, and the victim accused Shiv Shankar of kidnapping and rape.
The police added new charges under Section 376 IPC and POCSO, but no fresh investigation was conducted regarding the poisoning.
ALSO READ: Swati Maliwal Assault Case: Court Rejects Bibhav Kumar’s Plea Against Cognizance Order
On August 3, 2016, Maliwal requested an independent SIT probe and compensation for the victim. However, during the legal proceedings, a charge sheet was filed against her for allegedly disclosing the victim’s identity.
Maliwal argued that her actions were done in good faith. However, the court found that there was prima facie evidence against her under Sections 74 and 86 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The court emphasized that this needed to be proven at a later stage.
The High Court noted
“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.”
ALSO READ: [Swati Maliwal Assault Case] Bibhav Kumar Seeks Regular Bail from Delhi HC
After reviewing the evidence, the court ruled that the FIR against Maliwal could not be canceled and dismissed her petition.
- For Swati Maliwal: Advocates Arun Khatri, Anushka Bhalla, Shelly Dixit, and Tracy Sebistian.
- For the State: Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Bhandari.
