BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.11.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.13928 & 13929 of 2025 Sakthivel ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, AWPS - Aalangudi, Pudukottai District.

Crime No.11 of 2024

2.Vasandha Kumar S/o.Durai Raj, District Child Protection Officer, District Child Protection Unit, Kalyanramapuram, Pudukottai District.

3.Santhosh

4.Sesario

5.Balaji ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for records relating to the impugned charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamypandiyan For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the final report in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai, filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 9(f), 10, 5(l) and 6(1) of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 506(1)

and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The gist of the allegation in the impugned final report is that the petitioner, who was working as a teacher in a school, had inappropriately touched the private parts of three victim boys, who were studying in the 12^th Standard at the relevant time, and also threatened them by stating that he would reduce their marks if they disclosed the petitioner’s acts to any other person.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned prosecution is false; that the victim boys had given a false complaint as the petitioner was strict with them; and that they are not willing to pursue the complaint and were forced to lodge it under compulsion. He would further submit that the complaint was lodged at the instance of the District Child Protection Officer.

4. On 13.11.2025, when this case came up for hearing, this Court had directed the first respondent police to record the statements of the victim boys.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent would fairly submit that the police have recorded the statements of the victim boys; that all the victim boys had stated that they were not interested in pursuing the case; and that they had falsely accused the petitioner of the aforesaid offences without understanding the seriousness of the allegations and the impact of those allegations on the petitioner.

6. In satisfaction of those statements, this Court had directed the first respondent to produce the victim boys before this Court. Today, all the victim boys and their parents are present in person before this Court. The victim boys have been identified by M/s.P.Kannikadevi, Head Constable Grade I, All Women Police Station, Alangudi, Pudukottai District. All the victim boys and their parents would confirm that, since the petitioner was strict with the victim boys, the victim boys had made a phone call to the second respondent, District Child Protection Officer, who, in turn, lodged the complaint; that the complaint is false; and that they do not wish to pursue the case any longer.

7. Under normal circumstances, this Court would have initiated action against the complainant for false prosecution, as the offences under the POCSO Act are serious in nature. Making a false accusation of commission of any offence has to be viewed seriously, more so, when the accusation pertains to an offence under the POCSO Act, where the consequences are severe. However, considering the age of the petitioners, who were hardly 17 years at the time of the complaint, this Court is inclined to pardon them and refrain from taking action. The complainants/victims have also filed an affidavit stating that they have realised their mistakes. The affidavit filed by the victim boys