Factual Background

The petitioner, a Tamil teacher employed in Venkateshwarapuram Village Committee Higher Secondary School, sought quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli District. The prosecution alleged that a VII Standard student informed her mother that on 12.12.2023, when she had gone to the staff room, the petitioner subjected her to “bad touch” and threatened her with academic consequences if she disclosed the incident. Based on the complaint, Crime No.1 of 2024 was registered for offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506(i) IPC. After investigation, a final report was filed and cognizance was taken by the Special Court.

The petitioner contended that the complaint was malicious and stemmed from institutional hostility arising out of service-related disputes. It was also argued that the present case formed part of a series of motivated prosecutions and that material inconsistencies existed between the complaint and the statements recorded during investigation.

Court’s Analysis

The High Court discussed the scope of its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, observing that constitutional courts possess the duty to prevent abuse of criminal process where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, fail to disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences. While recognising that courts ordinarily exercise caution in quashing prosecutions under the POCSO Act, the Court held that intervention becomes necessary where the prosecution appears to arise out of exaggeration or misunderstanding.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that courts exercising quash jurisdiction may examine surrounding circumstances to determine whether criminal law has been maliciously invoked. The Court emphasised that “sexual intent” is the foundational ingredient of an offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Upon interacting with the child victim in camera, the Court found that the child categorically denied having been subjected to sexual abuse by the petitioner. The Court held that there was no prima facie material disclosing any act bearing sexual overtone.

With respect to Section 506(i) IPC, the Court observed that the alleged threat regarding examinations arose in the context of classroom discipline and could not amount to criminal intimidation. The Court further noted that both the de-facto complainant and the victim stated that the complaint had arisen due to misunderstanding following the petitioner scolding the child. Referring to Section 95 IPC, the Court observed that ordinary classroom discipline cannot be criminalised under stringent child protection legislation.

Order of the Court

The Madras High Court held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the proceedings in Spl.C.C. No.151 of 2024 pending before the Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli District, were quashed.

Key Takeaway

The judgment reiterates that “sexual intent” is indispensable for attracting liability under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The decision underscores that courts must remain vigilant against exaggerated or malicious invocation of child protection statutes, particularly where ordinary disciplinary conduct is transformed into criminal allegations without foundational material establishing criminality.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa