High Courts cannot quash criminal proceedings based on witness inconsistencies; such determinations are reserved for the trial court during trial.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act , Tiruvannamalai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.03.2023, when the victim was in the class room attending Mathematics class, the petitioner being the Mathematics Teacher, sexually assaulted her. Therefore, on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.3 of 2023 for the offences under Section 354A (1)(i) of IPC and Sections 9(1) and 10 of the POCSO Act . After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. Now, the petitioner is facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections Section 354A (1)(i) of IPC and Sections 9(1) and 10 of the POCSO Act , as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under , Tiruvannamalai.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that even according to the victim, the petitioner had sat near the victim and pinched her chins and touched her lips. He further submitted that the other students of the same class room deposed that no such occurrence had taken place. Hence he prayed to quash the same. It must be pointed out here that the said contradiction, which can be raised before the trial Court during the trial by way of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, cannot be a ground to quash the entire proceedings at this stage.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

7. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No3 of 2023 for the offences under Sections Section 354A (1)(i) of IPC and Sections 9(1) and 10 of the POCSO Act . After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgement reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

9. Furt