COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed to call for the records culminated in FIR in Crime No.28 of 2019 dated 19.09.2019 on the file of first respondent and quash the same.

2. The petitioner in all these petitions are the named accused in the case in Cr. No.28 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent. When the matter is taken up today, there is no representation for the second respondent.

3. The case of the prosecution as it appears from the complaint is that when the second respondent / defacto complainant's daughter was studying in 11th Standard at Government Higher Secondary School, Anagaputhur, one of the faculty by name Kirubananadan joining with one Muralidaran, the President of Parent-Teacher Association of the said school, misused the children for achieving their personal scores and they instigated the students to commit violence in the school and destroy the school properties. On 09.08.2019 free laptops were issued to the students but the same was not issued to the second respondent’s daugther. After the second respondent had given a complaint in this regard, a laptop was given to the second respondent’s daughter. However, at the instigation of the said Muralidharan, the petitioners along with some students started to harass the second respondent’s daughter by calling her 'Spy'. On 04.09.2019 more than ten students surrounded the second respondent’s daughter and abused her in filthy language and threatened her that they would throw acid on her. The second respondent’s daughter was threatened that she should not attend school thereafter. Based on these allegations the second respondent has given a complaint and on which a case has been registered in Cr. No.28/2019 for the offences under Section 12 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, Section 67 A & 67 B of Information Technology Act, 2000, 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act and Section 1992, 109, 294(b), 506(1), 354 A, 147 & 509 IPC.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint is a motivated one and the petitioners have been unnecessarily implicated as accused in this case; the second respondent assumed the role of President of Parent-Teacher's association and with that motive he has given the complaint; in an enquiry conducted by the Headmaster of the School, it came to be known that the whole problem had arisen due to the non-issuance of the laptop to the second respondent’s daughter; the result of the internal enquiry has been sent to the District Education Officer and that would show that the complaint is a false one; since the students are made as an accused in a criminal case their future will be affected and hence the proceedings should be quashed.

5. The learned Government Advocate submitted that in view of the stay granted, investigation could not be proceeded; the internal enquiry is made by a person who is also made as an accused; only if investigation allowed to be done, the real facts can be brought to light; on the face of it the complaint makes out a criminal case and hence these petitions should be dismissed.

6. On perusal of records, it is seen that the second respondent had given a complaint by making various allegations against the staff that they misused the children to settle their personal scores. It is further stated that due to misguidance of some of the staff members, the students were treated in a biased manner and as an offshoot the second respondent's daughter was not given with the free laptop; since the second respondent has given a complaint about the non-issuance of the laptop to his daughter, she has been given with a laptop subsequently.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the motive for the complaint is non-issuance of laptop to the second respondent's daughter. But it is not known why the issuance of laptop was withheld for the second respondent's daughter when all