The present revisional application has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of Special Case No. 83 of 2025 arising out of Samuktala P.S. Case No. 187 of 2025 dated 23.07.2025, under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, POCSO Act), presently pending before the learned Special Court at Alipurduar.

Mr. Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, contends that the criminal proceeding (Special Case No. 83 of 2025) originates from a suo motu complaint lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police, and that neither the victim nor any guardian has lodged any complaint against the petitioner, who is a teacher with 17 years of unblemished service. He further submits that no preliminary inquiry was conducted prior to initiation of the proceeding.

He further submits that the alleged incident occurred in a classroom in the presence of nearly 100 students. He contends that the petitioner had merely scolded certain students for not completing their homework; however, he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

He further submits that the complaint does not disclose any specific overt act, nor is there any material indicating sexual intent, which, according to him, is a sine qua non for invocation of Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

He further submits that there are irreconcilable contradictions between the complaint and the statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. He contends that, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, they do not constitute any offence and, as such, according to him, continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the process of law. He further submits that, if the proceeding is allowed to continue, it would set a dangerous precedent by exposing teachers to criminal prosecution for routine classroom discipline. In support of his contention, he cites a decision, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1404 (MRP (Identity Withheld) vs. State (NCT of Delhi)).

Per contra, Mr. Chakraborty, learned APP appearing for the State, produces the case diary and opposes the petitioner’s prayer for quashing of the proceeding on the basis of the materials contained therein. Mr. Chakraborty submits that it cannot be said that the allegations do not constitute any offence, even if they are taken at their face value. He further submits that the issues as to whether there are irreconcilable contradictions between the complaint and the statements of the witnesses, or whether the ingredients of Section 10 of the POCSO Act are satisfied, or whether there was any sexual intent, cannot be adjudicated at this stage. He submits that, following the alleged incident, the victim was unwilling to attend school thereafter.

Heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record including the case diary.

Needless to emphasise, the power to quash a criminal proceeding is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and in the rarest of rare cases. Though the power is wide, it is not unlimited. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated illustrative categories of cases in which such power may be exercised. In the decision, it was, inter alia, observed that where the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence, the proceeding may be quashed. However, at this stage, the Court is not expected to embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or complaint. Further, where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide