ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash Annexure.A2 charge in Crime No.2/2021 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as S.C. No.441/2022 on the files of the Special Court (for the trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [hereinafter referred as ‘POCSO Act’ for short]), Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available. 3. In this matter, the prosecution allegation is that, the accused/petitioner herein, who has been running a youtube channel by name ‘True TV’ - True Satellite Communication Pvt. Ltd. owned by him, with intention to increase rating of his channel, disclosed the identity of the victim of POCSO Act offences in Crime No.2338/2020 of Kadakkavoor Police Station. The specific allegation is that, starting from 01.09.2020, the accused published necessary inputs, including the photographs of the father of the victim, neighbors and grandfather, who is the defacto complainant herein, in his youtube channel. It is on this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 228(A) of IPC as well as under Sections 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he did not disclose anything regarding the identity of the victim, though photograph of the father of the victim published through the video. Therefore, the offences alleged against the petitioner would not attract in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for quashment of the proceedings. Grounds C, D and E are specifically raised to pursue the relief. The same are as under: C. In the present case, the petitioner has never exhibited the name of the victim. Petitioner was the first person in the media who had found the plight of the real victim who is the mother and has aired her plight. He had exhibited the monster behind the case who has foisted this unpardonable offence on the father of the husband of the real victim. The so-called victim’s father in his name has lodged a complaint against the petitioner under section 23 of the POCSO Act. He had exhibited the monster behind the case who has foisted this unpardonable offence on the father of the husband of the real victim. The so-called victim’s father in his name has lodged a complaint against the petitioner under section 23 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner has never exhibited any information of the son who had been used in the case by the monster husband of the accused mother. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet at the Court of the Additional District Judge (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram. The Court of the Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, took cognizance of the offence alleged and directed that summons be issued to petitioner. D. The actions of the petitioner has never impaired the dignity of any child which has the paramount duty to be safeguarded by the society. Here in this case the petitioner has never aired any details of the so-called victim. He has only exhibited the complainant of the FIR No. 2 of 2021 of Cyber Police Station Thiruvananthapuram Rural as he himself has exhibited his name in the complaint. The fact is that, the complainant/ estranged husband of the accused in Crime No. 2338 of 2020 of Kadakkavoor police Station on whom the petitioner had aired the story is the real “demon” who has made the so-called victim's son to allege false hood on his biological mother. This was done for the benefit of the complainant in Crime No.. 2 of 2021 of Cyber Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram Rural. The complainant/ father does not have the protection given under the POCSO Act. The police were dancing to the tunes of the complainant because of his financial upper-hand and the outreach he had with the political leaders in the area. The monster/complainant has made his son give false statements against his own biological mother. This case has been closed and mother has been acquitted from the charges levelled against her in Crime No. 2338 of 2020 of Kadakkavoor Police Station. E. It is submitted that the offence under section 23 of the POCSO Act is non- cognizable. The section 155 of the CrPC and the language of the section if gone through makes it clear that it is mandatory that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate. Therefore, the said provision is mandatory and required to be complied with prior to investigating a non-cognizable offence. The section 155 of the CrPC and the language of the section if gone through makes it clear that it is mandatory that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate. Therefore, the said provision is mandatory and required to be complied with prior to investigating a non-cognizable offence. Section 155(2) of the CrPC provides for the permission of the Magistrate but under the POCSO Act, it is the Special Court designated which deals with offences under the Act. That being so, the word “Magistrate” in Section 155(2) is read as “Special Courts” for offences under the POCSO Act, and the special courts will take cognizance of all the offences under the POCSO Act. Hence the police will have to get permission from the Special Court to proceed with the investigation of the non-Cognizable Offence under the POCSO Act. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for quashment and submitted that there are materials in abundance to see commission of offences under Section 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted in tune with the learned Public Prosecutor that, the persons who witnessed the youtube channel of the accused, identified the victim from the inputs provided therein. Therefore, commission offences punishable under Section 228(A) of IPC as well as under Sections 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act by the accused is well made out, prima facie. Thus, the quashment sought for by the petitioner could not be granted. 7. Coming to the ingredients under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act, reference to Section 23 of the POCSO Act is necessary. The same 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. The same 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. 8. Going by the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 23 of the POCSO Act, publishing 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 reputation of the child or infringing upon privacy of the child, is an offence and contravention of the same is punishable under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act. 9. Going through the available materials, the specific case of the prosecution is that, as per the materials collected during investigation, in the disputed news item published through ‘True TV’, necessary inputs to identify the victim and his parents, inclusive of publication of their photographs could be noticed and witness Nos. 1 to 5 given statements supporting the same. Witness No.8 in the charge, recorded the screen shots of the alleged video along with 65(B) certificate, as part of investigation. Thus, prima facie, it appears that, those who witnessed the youtube channel of the accused, identified the victim from the inputs provided therein. 1 to 5 given statements supporting the same. Witness No.8 in the charge, recorded the screen shots of the alleged video along with 65(B) certificate, as part of investigation. Thus, prima facie, it appears that, those who witnessed the youtube channel of the accused, identified the victim from the inputs provided therein. Therefore, commission offences under Sections 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act by the accused/petitioner is specifically well made out, prima facie, and for which the trial shall go on. 10. In so far as the contentions raised in ground E, whether the offence under Section 23 of the POCSO Act is non-cognizable or cognizable is concerned, there are divergent views by the Apex Court in the decision reported in [2022 KHC OnLine 6320 : 2022 KHC 6320 : 2022 (@) KLT OnLine 1004] Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti v. State of Karnataka. That is to say, two Hon’ble Judges of the Division Bench expressed divergent views and the matter was requested to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, to be considered by the proper Bench. 11. The judgment delivered by Hon’ble Justice Indira Banerjee in this regard, is as under: I am unable to accept the argument of the Appellant that the proceedings were vitiated and liable to be quashed or the Appellant was liable to be discharged without trial, only because of want of prior permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate into the alleged offence. The Appellant would have to defend the proceedings initiated against him under S.23 of the POCSO on merits. 12. The judgment rendered by Hon’ble Justice J.K. Maheshwari, is as under: I am unable to agree to the view taken in the judgment for the reasons that the procedure of S.155(2) is required to be followed in an offence of POCSO Act under S.23 which is non-cognizable and the Special Court is required to look into the procedure followed in the investigation. The order taking cognizance and to pass consequential order rejecting the application for discharge is not in accordance with law. The view taken by this Court in case of Keshav Lal Thakur (supra) relating to a case of non- cognizable offence, is aptly applicable in the facts of the present case. Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee pronounced her judgment dismissing the appeal in terms of the signed reportable judgment. Hon'ble Mr. The view taken by this Court in case of Keshav Lal Thakur (supra) relating to a case of non- cognizable offence, is aptly applicable in the facts of the present case. Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee pronounced her judgment dismissing the appeal in terms of the signed reportable judgment. Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari pronounced a separate judgment, disagreeing with the view expressed by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee and allowed the appeal. Since the Bench has not been able to agree, the Registry is directed to forthwith place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, for assignment before an appropriate Bench. 13. In the instant case, while registering the crime, cognizable offence under Section 228(A) of IPC also was registered along with offences under Sections 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act. Whether, offence under Section 23 of the POCSO Act is non-cognizable or cognizable is a matter yet to be decided by the Apex Court. Deeming that the same is non-cognizable offence, then also offence under Section 228(A) of IPC is cognizable. Therefore, in view of Section 155(4) of Cr.P.C., the investigation conducted by the Police Officer, inclusive of offence under Section 228(A) of IPC and Section 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act, is in no way vitiated. 14. In the present case, at the outset itself, it could be gathered that offence punishable under Section 228(A) of IPC would not attract in facts of this case, since in Crime No.2338/2020 of Kadakkavoor Police Station, there was no allegation as to commission of offences under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-AB, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376-DA, 376-DB or Section 376-E of IPC. Therefore, prosecution for the said offence is liable to be quashed. 15. In this case, offence under the POCSO Act was alleged to be committed by the accused, who is the mother of the victim. But, on investigation, Police filed report to drop the proceedings. As per Annexure.A5 order in Crl.M.C. No.4831/2021 dated 23.11.2021, this Court directed the Sessions Court to accept the report. Annexure.A5 order was challenged before the Apex Court as per SLP (Criminal) Diary No.22397/2022 and as per Annexure.A6 order, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP. 16. Whether dropping of the case involving offences under the POCSO Act would absolve the offender/s under Section 23(1) of the POCSO Act is the pertinent question poses for consideration. Annexure.A5 order was challenged before the Apex Court as per SLP (Criminal) Diary No.22397/2022 and as per Annexure.A6 order, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP. 16. Whether dropping of the case involving offences under the POCSO Act would absolve the offender/s under Section 23(1) of the POCSO Act is the pertinent question poses for consideration. As per Section 23 of the POCSO Act, reporting or commenting 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, is an offence. That apart, 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, as provided under Section 23(2) of the POCOS Act. Thus, if at all, on investigation, the allegations in the POCSO case are found to be false, disclosing the identity of the minor victim therein, reporting or commenting on the said victim from any form of media without having complete and authentic information, which may have the effect of lowering the minor victim's reputation or infringing upon his privacy, would attract offence under Section 23 of the POCSO Act. The rational is, merely on investigation, if the allegations regarding POCSO offences are found to be false, that would not efface the trauma suffered by the victim and the ordeal to be carried by the victim always, in view of his identity disclosure in public domain. 17. Thus, the available materials would show, prima facie, the ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Sections 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act. 18. In view of the above, this petition stands allowed in part. The case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 228(A) of IPC stands quashed, while dismissing the other prayer. The petitioner is directed to go for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court, within three days, for information and further steps.