M PROSECUTRIX Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the previous orders of this Court where the learned counsel for the petitioner had adverted to Sec. 26 Clause A (III) of Cr.P.C. and second proviso to sub-Sec. 327(2) of Cr.P.C. as well as the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Assessment of the Criminal Justice System in Response to Sexual Offences, SMW (Crl) No. 04/2019, the Ld. APP has filed a status report in that regard.

(2.) As per the status report, facts of complaint have been stated which are essentially allegations of misuse of complainant's photographs on a porn site. It is stated that pursuant to the FIR the accused was arrested on 11/11/2020 and the laptop of the accused was seized already in a previous matter. The matter is now before the Ld. Trial Court and listed for arguments on charge and other proceedings. The petitioner has contended that the proceedings should be presided over by a female Judge and not a male Judge in light of the above provisions and judgment.

(3.) A perusal of the said provisions would show that there is no inflexible mandate as regards the trial of matters under Sec. 376 IPC to be dealt with by a Court presided over by a woman judge. Sec. 26 (a)(iii) proviso categorically provides that offences mentioned in the said proviso (inter alia Sec. 376 IPC) shall be tried "as far as practicable" by a Court presided over by a woman. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to above, has adverted to this provision in para 17 of the said order as also to the second proviso to sub-sec. 327 (2) Cr.P.C. (which provides that in camera trial shall be conducted as far as far as practicable by a Court presided over by a woman judge or magistrate) and observed that "insertion of the above proviso has a very important object and the rider of 'as far as practicable' cannot be used to overcome the mandate in an ordinary manner."