Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. Victoria Gowri, J.
S. Rajadurai Lingam – Petitioner
versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondents
Crl.O.P. (MD) No.16736 of 2024 and Crl.M.P. (MD) Nos.10502 and 10504 of 2024
Decided on 30.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Anand
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. B. Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. J. Ashok
IMPORTANT POINT
Bad touch by Teacher with minor girl student – Mere disciplinary admonition or academic warning cannot be elevated into criminal intimidation absent real threat contemplated by penal law – Child protection laws are to shield vulnerable, not to punish ordinary human interactions bereft of criminality.
Headnote:
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 7 and 8 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 506(i) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Bad touch by Teacher with minor girl student – In offences under Section 7 POCSO, 2012, sexual intent is not incidental but foundational – In absence of prima facie material disclosing such intent, penal provision cannot be mechanically attracted – Once very alleged victim displaces prosecutorial foundation, continuance of prosecution under Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, would be wholly artificial – Mere disciplinary admonition or academic warning cannot be elevated into criminal intimidation absent real threat contemplated by penal law – Though quashment in serious offences is not founded merely on compromise or no-objection, where very factual substratum disappears, continuation of prosecution becomes oppressive – Criminal law cannot be permitted to become instrument to convert pedagogic correction into sexual crime – Child protection laws are to shield vulnerable, not to punish ordinary human interactions bereft of criminality – Where prosecution rests not upon real offence but upon misunderstanding amplified into accusation, judicial intervention is not merely permissible but imperative – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25 and 26)
Result: Criminal Original Petition allowed.
ORDER
The inherent jurisdiction of this Court preserved under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, inhering from the well-established principles governing Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973, exists not as a routine appellate correctional power, but as a constitutional safeguard against abuse of criminal process and to secure the ends of justice.
2. While prosecutions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, are ordinarily to be approached with utmost sensitivity and circumspection, the gravity attached to allegations under the statute cannot eclipse the equally compelling duty of constitutional Courts to prevent misuse of penal law where the materials, even taken at face value, do not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences.
3. Courts are indeed slow in exercising quash jurisdiction in prosecutions under special statutes involving child protection. Yet, where the criminal process itself appears to have been triggered upon exaggeration of a trivial episode, or where the victim herself disowns the substratum of accusation, continuance of prosecution would itself amount to injustice.
4. It is in the aforesaid legal background that the present petition seeking quashment of proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.151 of 2024 falls for consideration.
5. The petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.C.C.No.151 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli, for offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506(i) IPC.
Case of the prosecution:
6. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the complaint and final report, is that the victim girl, then a student of VII Standard in Venkateshwarapuram Village Committee Higher Secondary School, allegedly disclosed to her mother on 04.01.2024 that on 12.12.2023, when she had gone to the staff room, the petitioner, then serving as Tamil Teacher in the school, allegedly subjected her to “bad touch” and threatened her with academic consequences if she disclosed the incident.
7. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent/de-facto complainant, Crime No.1 of 2024 was registered, investigation was undertaken, final report was filed and cognizance was taken in Spl.C.C.No.151 of 2024.
Grounds for quash:
8. The petitioner seeks quashment principally on the following grounds:—
(i) that the prosecution is actuated by mala fides and institutional vendetta arising from service-related disputes concerning promotion;
(ii) that the present prosecution is a sequel to an earlier allegedly engineered criminal case already quashed by this Court;
(iii) that multiple inconsistencies exist between the complaint, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the prosecutrix;
(iv) that the complaint is inherently improbable and bears the imprint of exaggeration and tutoring;
(v) that the ingredients of Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act and Section 506(i) IPC are not made out even prima facie;
(vi) that the prosecution falls within the parameters of malicious prosecution illustratively recognized in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335.
Submissions on either side:
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, a school teacher, has been victimised owing to internal management hostility arising out of service matters. It was contended that the present complaint is the second in a chain of motivated prosecutions, the earlier case having already been quashed by this Court after finding absence of substance.
10. Placing reliance on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 and Mahmood Ali and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613, it was argued that this Court, while exercising quash jurisdiction, is not confined merely to a formal reading of allegations, but can look into attendant circumstances to discern abuse of process. The learned counsel would submit that the alleged act, e
