Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1190

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mikavel – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by, the Inspector of Police, Thiruchendur AWPS – Police Station, Thoothukudi – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.3924, 3628, 3769 of 2026 and 21788 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.4192, 4195, 3900, 3902, 4042 & 4044 of 2026, 18703 and 18705 of 2025
Decided On : 01-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Selvakumar
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. side)

The High Court holds inherent power to prevent abuse of process in cases involving children. Whilst prioritizing child protection, the court must ensure that the justice system does not become an instrument for personal vendetta, mandating trauma-informed investigation and holistic welfare-centric outcomes over mechanical prosecution.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 7, 8, 22, 39, 43(a) and (b) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 87, 351(2), 351(3) - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 - Section 4 - Criminal procedure - Quashing of proceedings - Inherent powers of High Court - Scope and ambit - Proceedings involving children must transcend procedural ritualism to ensure holistic welfare - Allegations cannot be quashed merely on compromise in serious offences, yet misuse of legal process to settle personal vendetta requires intervention - Mandatory duty for trauma-informed investigation and institutional sensitivity. (Paras 3, 6, 36, 39, 67, 120)

(B) Criminal Prosecution - False implication - Institutional responsibility - Registration of cases without preliminary assessment in sensitive matters leads to abuse of process - Necessity of identifying systemic shortcomings in investigation - Responsibility of investigating agencies to prevent secondary victimisation and ensure psychological rehabilitation of minor victims. (Paras 4, 5, 8, 122)

Facts of the case:
The matters involved multiple petitions seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated under the legislation meant for child protection. The common thread identified across these cases was the potential misuse of stringent provisions to settle private disputes, matrimonial discords, or familial rivalries. These cases highlighted that minor children were often used as instruments in such fabrications, resulting in psychological trauma and institutional insensitivity during the investigative and adjudicatory process.

Findings of Court:
The Court acknowledged that while POCSO Act offences are serious and ordinarily cannot be quashed via compromise, the judiciary must not remain a silent observer when the legal machinery is weaponized to perpetuate personal vendettas at the cost of a child's dignity. The Court mandated independent enquiries into allegations of instigation and coercion regarding false complaints and directed state-wide sensitisation programmes for all stakeholders involved in the investigation and rehabilitation process.

Issues: Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings in cases of alleged false implication constitutes an abuse of process of law and whether the inherent jurisdiction of the Court can be invoked to secure the ends of justice while ensuring the welfare of the child victim.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that criminal proceedings must not be used as a battlefield for adult vengeance. When the foundation of a prosecution is shaken by materials indicating manipulation, the Court is duty-bound to prevent abuse of process. Justice in cases involving children must be welfare-oriented, prioritizing emotional recovery and rehabilitation over mechanical procedural completion.

Result: Petitions allowed or disposed of with directions for further enquiry into potential offences regarding false complaints and mandates for systemic institutional reform.

ORDER :

Common Prologue:

(For the Compendium of Child-Welfare Oriented Orders under the POCSO Regime)

This Court has consciously chosen to present the following four matters together in the form of a single compendium of judicial orders, not for the purpose of sensationalising instances of alleged false implication under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”), but rather as a larger child-welfare centred constitutional exercise intended to provoke institutional introspection, academic engagement, policy reflection, and systemic reform concerning the manner in which children are presently dealt with within the criminal justice administration.

2. Though arising from different factual backgrounds, districts, and individual narratives, all the four cases placed before this Court revealed one deeply disturbing common feature namely, that children who entered the justice delivery system under the protective umbrella of the POCSO Act ultimately became exposed to varying degrees of emotional confusion, psychological strain, procedural insensitivity, institutional inadequacy, repetitive narration of allegations, social stigma, family conflict, and systemic mechanicalness. The present compendium therefore emerges not from a desire to undermine the sanctity of the POCSO Act, but from an urgent constitutional necessity to strengthen its humane implementation.

3. The POCSO Act is one of the most progressive and transformative child-protection legislations enacted by Parliament. It represents a solemn constitutional promise made by the Republic to every child that the legal system shall protect them from sexual exploitation, emotional abuse, intimidation, and institutional neglect. The statute is fundamentally child-centric in philosophy, trauma- sensitive in design, and rehabilitative in spirit. However, these cases collectively reveal that enactment of a welfare legislation alone cannot achieve its constitutional objectives unless the surrounding implementation ecosystem evolves with equal sensitivity, expertise, coordination, and sincerity.

4. The present matters exposed before this Court several recurring concerns requiring immediate institutional attention:

(i) absence of trauma-informed investigative approaches;

(ii) mechanical registration and prosecution practices;

(iii) insufficient understanding of child psychology;

(iv) repeated exposure of children to emotionally exhausting legal procedures;

(v) inadequate counselling and therapeutic support mechanisms;

(vi) lack of coordinated welfare intervention;

(vii) operational shortcomings in child-sensitive investigation;

(viii) institutional overdependence upon adversarial procedures;

(ix) inadequate training among stakeholders;

(x) structural gaps in rehabilitation frameworks;

(xi) and legislative silence regarding long-term emotional recovery and reintegration of children affected by criminal litigation.

5. The Court is constrained to observe that in many cases, the criminal justice system continues to function in a manner primarily focused upon procedural completion rather than holistic child welfare. A child subjected to repeated institutional interaction whether before police officers, counsellors, doctors, prosecutors, or Courts, undergoes an emotional journey that legal records seldom capture. Every statement recorded, every medical examination conducted, every confrontation facilitated, and every courtroom appearance compelled upon a child leaves psychological impressions upon the developing mind of that child.

6. This Court therefore considers it necessary to emphasise that the true object of the POCSO Act is not confined merely to registration of FIRs, filing of charge sheets, or securing convictions. The soul of child protection jurisprudence lies in preserving childhood dignity, emotional safety, educational continuity, psychological healing, social reintegration, and constitutional compassion. A child who enters the justice syste