ORDER : 1. The petitioners who are press reporters are before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in Spl. Case No.1036/2019 pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari arising out of FIR in Crime No.79/2019 for the offences punishable under Section 228(a) of IPC, under Section 23(A) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and under Section 74(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 2. The case of the prosecution is that 2nd respondent – District Child Protection Officer had filed a complaint stating that the petitioners have disclosed the identity of victim under POCSO Act by publishing the same in news paper viz., in Ballari Belagayitu news paper and telecasting of press conference on television channel. On the basis of said complaint, Crime No.79/2019 was registered by Kudalagi Police for investigation. Upon investigation, charge sheet was filed on 12.07.2019 and the matter is now pending before the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari in Spl.C.No.1036/2019. 3. The facts are that the victim had lodged a complaint on 08.12.2018 stating that on 19.10.2018, three accused had committed offences under POCSO Act, when the incident happened, the victim was 17 years 9 months. 4. Though the said complaint was registered no action was taken by the concerned authorities/police. The victim along with her parents wanted to hold a press conference so as to appeal to the concerned authorities to take immediate action on her complaint. As per the request made by the parents and victim, a press conference was organized by the petitioners after verifying the age of the victim who was to hold the press conference hence they are not in default of Section 23 of POCSO Act, 2012. 5. The press conference was called for voluntarily by the victim and it is the statement of the victim which was reported both in newspaper and in the television telecast. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence. They have been unnecessarily dragged into the matter, they only facilitated the victim and her parents to air their grievance. Victim being major as on the date of the said conference, Section 23 of the Act is not applicable. On the above grounds, petitioners seek for quashing of the proceedings. 6. They have been unnecessarily dragged into the matter, they only facilitated the victim and her parents to air their grievance. Victim being major as on the date of the said conference, Section 23 of the Act is not applicable. On the above grounds, petitioners seek for quashing of the proceedings. 6. Learned HCGP submits that the proceedings cannot be quashed since there is complete bar in terms of Section 23 of the Act for the media to report as regards any child who is a victim under POCSO Act. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondents and perused the papers. 8. Section 23 of the POCSO Act reads as under: 23. Procedure for media.- 1. No person shall make any report or present comments on any child from any form of media or studio or photographic facilities without having complete and authentic information, which may have the effect of lowering his reputation or infringing upon his privacy. 2. No reports in any media shall disclose, the identity of a child including his name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood or any other particulars which may lead to disclosure of identity of the child: Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Special Court, competent to try the case under the Act, may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the interest of the child. 3. The publisher or owner of the media or studio or photographic facilities shall be jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions of his employee. 4. Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a period which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. 9. The important question that would arise in the present matter is relating to privacy of the victim and family of the victim as regards the disclosure of the name of the victim and family members when the child is a victim under the POCSO Act. There is a bar under Section 23 of the act for disclosure of the name of either the victim or the parents (family members), their address, photographs, family details, school, neighbourhood or any information which is capable of identifying the victim child. There is a bar under Section 23 of the act for disclosure of the name of either the victim or the parents (family members), their address, photographs, family details, school, neighbourhood or any information which is capable of identifying the victim child. Since such disclosure would have a tremendous sociological and psychological impact on such a victim/child. It is in order to prevent the same, Section 23 of the Act seeks to protect the child’s privacy due to such public disclosure. 10. The embargo which has been imposed under Section 23 is in order to protect the child, however, in the event of any proceedings having been filed by the child or the parents of the child, for offences under the POCSO Act and no action having been taken thereof and in the event of the child or her parents wanting to bring the same to the notice of the general public or authorities concerned, I am of the considered opinion that they should have access to the public media. However, it is only after the child attains majority and is able to make an informed voluntary decision in this regard. During the minority of the child, the parents cannot make a decision to report the incident with the name of the child or any identification factors. It is only the child who can make the decision voluntarily after attaining majority. 11. There are checks and balances which are required to be imposed as regards the above in order to be certain that there is no misuse of the same. It is for this reason that the Special Court, competent to try the case under the Act is empowered to permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the interest of the child, thus an application could have been made by the media seeking for such permission before holding the press conference and or publishing the same in Newspapers. 12. Even though it is contended that the victim on attaining majority had voluntarily called for a press conference or participated in the interview or the like, it would be for the media to establish that there are no other means which have been used by the media and or any third party to prevail upon the child who has achieved majority to participate in such press conference or interviews. The burden of proof in this regard i.e. to say the burden as regards the child having voluntarily participated would be on the media and not merely on a statement that the child has voluntarily consented. The disclosure has not been permitted by the Special Court prior to such disclosure. Now that the disclosure is made and prima facie offence under the POCSO act has been committed, the Special court by recording reasons in writing would have to consider if the disclosure alleged to have been made voluntarily, is infact voluntarily made and that the disclosure is in the interest of the child. 13. The above aspects cannot be adjudicated and decided in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. In view of the above observation, the petition as filed is rejected reserving liberty to the petitioners to establish before the trial Court that the child had voluntarily participated in the press conference and voluntarily agreed to the disclosure of her details during such press conference and such disclosure was in the interest of the child. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.