Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 51 of 2025 dated 21.06.2025 registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 75 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) 2012. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts givingH rise to the present petition are that Rakesh Tomar, posted as Trained Graduate Teacher, Non-Medical, used to touch his students inappropriately. The girl students were distressed by this behaviour of the teacher. They made a written complaint to the petitioner, who was posted as the principal of the school. The petitioner failed to take any action. The parents of the girls resorted to agitation and shouted slogans against the administration. The police reached the spot. A complai nt signed by twenty-five female students was produced before the police, and the Police registered the FIR. The police arrested the teacher and seized the record. It was found that one victim and her father had earlier made a complaint to this effect against the teacher before the petitioner. 25 girl students had also filed a written complaint against the teacher before the petitioner. However, the petitioner had not taken any action. The relatives of the victims organised a protest in the school premises and shouted slogans. The police came to the spot and registered the FIR. The petitioner had not informed the police, which amounted to an offence punishable under Section 21 (2) of the POCSO Act. Hence, the chargesheet was filed before the Court against the teacher and the petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved by the filing ofH the chargesheet, the petitioner has approached this Court asserting that there was no delay or laxity on her part. The petitioner is a female and would not shield any person accused of committing an offence punishable under the POCSO Act. The complaint was received on 20.06.2025 and was forwarded to the Station House OfÏcer, Rajgarh. FIR was registered based on the complaint forwarded by the petitioner. The petitioner cooperated with the investigation. No information was given to the petitioner before 20.06.2025. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR be quashed.

4. I have heard Mr N K Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr N.K. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had forwarded the complaint to the police, and the police had registered the FIR based on the complaint so forwarded. The petitioner was wrongly arrayed as an accused. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner be quashed.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had not forwarded the complaint to the police and no FIR would have been registered in the present case, but for the agitation by the victims’ relatives. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the learned Trial Court is seized of the matter. This Court should n ot exercise its inherent jurisdiction at this stage. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The law relating to quashing of FIR was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: -