ORDER The 2 nd accused in S.C.No.982/2023 on the files of Special Court for the trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , Palakkad, has filed this Crl.M.C under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash all further proceedings against the petitioner in the above case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/2 nd accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Even though notice was served upon the 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant, she did not turn up. 3. In this case prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A (1)(ii) and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code (` IPC ’ for short) and under Sections 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(l), 9(n), 12 r/w 11(i) and 21 r/w 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (`POCSO Act’ for short), by the 1 st accused. The allegation against the 2 nd accused is that she has committed offence punishable under Section 21 r/w 19 of the POCSO Act since she failed to inform the police regarding the occurrence even though she got knowledge of the same on 11.10.2022. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued to contend that the petitioner is innocent. According to him, even though CW2, the Psycho Socio Counsellor of GHSS, Koodalloor gave statement that, as on 11.10.2022, the victim in this case informed her through her WhatsApp number regarding sexual assault at the instance of his step father on 11.10.2022 and accordingly the same was reported to the Headmistress, who is the petitioner herein, no such report was collected by the investigating officer. Going by the statutory wordings under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, `any person’ (including the child), who has apprehension that an offence under this Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence has been committed, he shall provide such information as provided under Section 19(1)(a) of the POCSO Act. If so, CW2, who got information regarding commission of POCSO Act offences by the step father of the victim on 11.10.2022 should be bound to inform the same to the police independently and she need not file a report to the Headmistress and wait for intimation of the same by the Headmistress to the police. If so, CW2, who got information regarding commission of POCSO Act offences by the step father of the victim on 11.10.2022 should be bound to inform the same to the police independently and she need not file a report to the Headmistress and wait for intimation of the same by the Headmistress to the police. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, CW2 (2 nd witness) should have been arrayed as an accused in this crime for non compliance of Section 19(1) of POCSO Act, but the police avoided CW2 from the array of accused. Instead, relying on the statement of CW2, who otherwise should have been arrayed as an accused, with the intention to save herself, the police found non compliance of Section 19(1) by the petitioner and the same is insufficient without any other supporting documents to fasten criminal culpability upon the petitioner. Therefore, all proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.982/2023 are liable to be quashed. 5. While opposing quashment it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Public Prosecutor that in this case crime was registered only on 15.06.2023 because of laches on the part of the petitioner to report the case to the police in time. It is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that going by the statutory wordings of Section 19(1), CW2 also has a duty to inform the same to the police. However, the same doesn’t absolve the petitioner, who also got information regarding the occurrence on 11.10.2022 itself from penal consequences. Therefore, whether CW2 is arrayed as an accused or not, is irrelevant since non compliance of Section 19 of the POCSO Act at the option of the petitioner is, prima facie, made out. At the same time, the learned Public Prosecutor conceded that apart from the solitary statement of CW2, no other records or materials were collected during investigation to support the statement of CW2. 6. In the instant case, the statement of CW2 would show that she came to know about sexual assault at the instance of step father against the victim on 11.10.2022 and she reported the same to the petitioner, who is the Headmistress of the school. Further it was the duty of the Headmistress to report the same to the police or Child Line. According to CW2, the report was subsided by the Headmistress (petitioner). Further it was the duty of the Headmistress to report the same to the police or Child Line. According to CW2, the report was subsided by the Headmistress (petitioner). Further she had entrusted the work diary and files pertaining to this occurrence to Smt.Khadeeja, the new Counsellor. Her statement would show further that on 14.06.2023 also, the victim and her mother approached her and accordingly she had given the contact number of the Child Line Welfare officer. In fact, this crime was registered thereafter on 15.06.2023. In the statement given by CW2, she had stated that report regarding the occurrence was mentioned in the work diary and she had transferred the work diary and all other files to the successor, instead of reporting to the Child Line. Her further statement is that on 14.06.2023 also, the victim and her mother approached her and accordingly crime was registered through the Child Welfare officer. On scanning the prosecution records, the successor counsellor of CW2, Smt.Khadeeja, was not cited as a witness by the police and her statement also was not recorded. That apart, the police did not seize the work diary and files. 7. On scrutiny of the entire prosecution records apart from solitary statement of CW2, who is also duty bound independently to report the crime to the police since she also comes under the category of `any person’ referred under Section 19(1) of POCSO Act, no other materials collected by the prosecution. The statement of CW2 is that she reported the same to the Headmistress and the Headmistress failed to report the same in time. In such a case, the Investigating officer should have questioned Smt.Khadeeja, the successor counsellor of CW2, to record her statement and to get custody of the work diary and files to show independently that the petitioner had knowledge regarding the occurrence on 11.10.2022 and despite that she failed to report the same, but no steps were taken by the Investigating officer, in this regard or otherwise to seize the report either from Smt.Khadeeja or to get a copy thereof from CW2. Thus it appears that the petitioner herein got arrayed as the 2 nd accused solely relying on the statement of CW2 not supported by any other materials, in a case where, CW2 is also responsible under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, as has been provided under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. Thus it appears that the petitioner herein got arrayed as the 2 nd accused solely relying on the statement of CW2 not supported by any other materials, in a case where, CW2 is also responsible under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, as has been provided under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. In order to fasten criminal culpability on a person, that too, in the context of failure to do the statutory obligation, mere statement by a person, who is similarly placed liable to be arrayed as an accused is insufficient. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution records are quite insufficient to fasten criminal culpability upon the petitioner on the allegation that she had knowledge regarding such an occurrence as stated by CW2, prima facie. Be it so, the prosecution as against the petitioner would necessary fail for want of sufficient materials. In view of the same, quashment prayer is liable to succeed. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.982/2023 on the files of Special Court for the trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , Palakkad, arose out of Crime No.469/2023 of Chalissery Police Station, Palakkad, stand quashed.