POCSO victims can’t be asked to pay expenses for Sec 207 CrPC documents, Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 25(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) entitles the complainant/victim to get a copy of the charge sheet as well as other documents in terms of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), and the trial court cannot ask her to pay expenses for the same..The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta in a case pertaining to an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act..The Court recorded that the Petitioner, who was the complainant and a minor, needed a copy of the chargesheet during the course of the trial. The same was directed to be supplied to the Petitioner by the Trial Court but at the expense of the Petitioner..Stating that Section 25(2) clearly mandates a Magistrate to provide to the child/parents/guardians copy of the documents as specified under Section 207 CrPC, the Court observed that the Magistrate “could not have asked for expenses from the complainant/victim in the FIR in question” for providing the same..Once the Act imposes a mandate to supply the documents, no charge can be directed to be levied, it held..The Court further observed,.“Though the issue looks trivial but it affects the rights of a victim as a victim cannot pursue trial effectively for not being in possession of the charge-sheet and the documents filed therewith. “.It is for this reason that Section 25(2) of POCSO Act mandates the court concerned to provide the charge-sheet and all documents supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C, it said..In view of the mandate, the Court directed the Registry of Tis Hazari Court to refund the sum of Rs. 340 deposited by the Petitioner for procuring the chargesheet..The Court further directed that its order be circulated to all the courts dealing with matters under POCSO Act. It has directed all such Courts to provide copies of the charge-sheet and all documents in terms of Section 207 CrPC simultaneously or at an immediate convenient date to the victim/complainant as well..The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Roshan Santhalia (who is on iProbono panel)..State was represented by Standing Counsel Rahul Mehra with Advocates Jamal Akhtar and Chaitanya Gosain..Read the order: