Madhya Pradesh High Court refuses to quash case against advocate for advising POCSO accused, prosecutrix to conceal facts of rape case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a revision petition filed by an advocate charged for advising his rape accused clients and the prosecutrix to hide material facts from the police and courts (Hiralal Dhurve v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)..The lawyer was charged under Sections 19 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mandla. As per these provisions, any person who has an apprehension that an offence under the Act has been committed, and fails to disclose the same, shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment of upto six months..Justice Sanjay Dwivedi observed that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower court."...Section 19 and 21 of POCSO Act very specifically provides that if any information with regard to offence committed with the minor girl comes into the notice of a person, he should immediately convey the same to the authority, but here in this case even after knowing such thing applicant has ill-advised the prosecutrix and as such offence has rightly been registered against him.".The applicant approached the High Court seeking to set aside an order passed by a Special Judge on January 13, 2021. In that order, the court had framed charges against him as well as his accused clients for the rape of a minor.The allegation against the lawyer was that he had told the accused to hide facts from the police and further advised the minor to say that no wrong had been committed..Before the High Court, counsel for the applicant argued that nothing illegal had been done by the lawyer, whose duty it was to advise his clients and build a defence of their case. Thus, no offence is made out, and the trial court erred in framing the charges against him under Section 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, it was submitted..Counsel for the State argued that the recorded statement of prosecutrix made it clear that the applicant, after knowing of the offence committed by the accused persons, advised her not to disclose true facts to the police. It was pointed out that the prosecutrix had never reached out to or contacted the applicant for any legal assistance..After hearing the parties, the Court would no infirmity in the lower court order and dismissed the plea..The petitioner was represented by Advocate HS Verma. The State was represented by Government Advocate AD Bajpai..[READ ORDER]