V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) In the present case Ms. Karuna Thareja made a complaint before the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, New Delhi alleging that her 6 years old daughter was sexually abused by her own father Mr. Sakun Tikku repeatedly for a period of few months during her visitation/weekend with her father. On the said complaint being moved, the Commission in exercise of authority vested under Section 13 (1) (J) of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 took cognizance of the complaint. The Commission after taking cognizance of the said compliant noted down the complaint, as has been mentioned by Ms. Karuna Thareja, and thereafter summons were issued to Praveen Kumar, SSP, Gautam Budh Nagar, Om Prakash Yadav, SHO, Police Station Section 49, Gautam Budh Nagar, Smt. Monika Chauhan, SHO and IO, Mahila Thana, Gautam Budh Nagar, Dr. Kusum, Senior Resident II, Examining Medical Officer, AIIMS and Dr. Monica Malik, Apollo Hospital. On 24th December, 2012, Shiva Ram Yadav, DSP, Noida, Monika Chauhan, the petitioner, Sakkun Tikku, the father, Anita and Geeta appeared before the Commission and their statement have been recorded. The Commission after recording the statement has concluded that the police investigation was entirely in contravention of law and shoddy insubstance. The Commission being concerned with the care and protection of child and not at all satisfied with the investigation, that has been so carried out, has proceeded to make recommendation under Section 15 (1) of the Act of 2005; "Recommendations: 23. Considering all the fact and circumstances as detailed hereinabove the commission makes the following recommendations in this Complaint Case. 24. Any allegation of a sexual offence is a serious nature hence the commission hereby recommends under Section 15 (I) of the CPCR Act 2005, to the Government of U.P. that appropriate proceedings for disciplinary action, including suspension be initiated against: (a) SHO Monica Chauhan for, inter alia I. Failure to register the complaint in any form as mentioned in Para 13; II. Failure to register a proper FIR in a timely manner as mentioned in Para 12; III. Failure to conduct the investigation as prescribed by law; IV. Failure to seize crucial medical evidence and conduct forensic tests on the seizures to establish the veracity of the complaint as mentioned in Para 14; V. Unrecorded contact with the accused in the process of investigation as mentioned in Para 13; VI. Failure to record the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, and subsequent Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the child a month after the complaint (as mentioned in Para 15 and 17); VII. Failure to record or delayed recording or deficient recording of evidence of material witnesses such as child line workers, psychotherapists and medical doctors (as mentioned in Para (16) (b) and DSP Shivram Yadav, for inter alia I. Giving false statements under oath to this commission regarding his involvement in the investigation; II. Being present without cause in the PS/Thana when the accused was informally present at the PS after the complaint (c) and any other person whom the Government of U.P. may deem fit after the conduct of a further internal enquiry. 2. The reinvestigation of the case having FIR No. 46/12, PS Mahila Thana UP by the CB-CID may be ordered by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh within 10 days due to the admitted shoddy and lax investigation as mentioned hereinabove. This recommendations in made by the commission under Section 15 (iii) of the CPCR Act 2005. 3. The matter be also referred to the Child Welfare Committee (CEC) Gautam Budh Nagar, under Section 15 (iii) of the CPCR Act 2005 to take appropriate interim actions under Section 32 (1) & (2) read with Section 2 (d) (vi) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 for the care, protection and supervision of the child including disallowance of access by the Accused so that he is not able to influence the testimony of the child or threaten her safety in any manner. These interim actions of the CWC may be initiated pending the completion of the investigation in the matter. 4. A status report on the actions taken by the above authorities be furnished to the commission in 30 day of this order. This decision may not be published without permission of the complainant OR ....action of the names of the Complainant pursuant to section 228A of the Indian Penal Code."
(2.) Petitioner at this juncture is before this Court contending therein that there has been no shortcoming in her investigation and further even the Court has accepted her investigation and the matter in question on protest petition is being treated as a criminal complaint case wherein statement is to be recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Petitioner submits that in such a situation and position once statement of girl has also been recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and she has not supported the case of prosecution then there remains nothing against the accused father Sakkun Tikku and, accordingly, investigation cannot be faulted. Petitioner in this background submits that based on the said recommendations, no action should be taken against her.
(3.) Under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Section 13 deals with the functions of Commissions and Section 13 (1)(j) provides the authority to the Commission to make enquiry into the complaints relating to I. deprivation and violation of child rights; II. non-implementation of laws providing for protection and development of children, III. non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships to and ensuring welfare of the children and to provide relief to such children, or take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities; ;