BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.11.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.13385 to 13387 of 2025 Kandasamy ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.

(MD) No.16401 /25 Alagianambi ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.

(MD) No.16402 /25 Chockalingaboopathy ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.

(MD) No.16403 /25 Vs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.24 of 2025)

3.Madhavi ... Respondents in all Crl.O.Ps.

Common Prayer : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.24 of 2025, on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioner in all Crl.O.Ps. : Mr.K.Muthu Ganesa Pandian For R1 & R2 in all Crl.O.Ps. : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

For R3 in all Crl.O.Ps. : Mr.S.Satheesh Kumar *****

C O M M ON O R D E R

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.24 of 2025 on the file of the second respondent, registered against the petitioners/A2 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 332(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 11(4), 12, 3, 4, 21(1) and 21(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A4, respectively. The gist of the allegations in the impugned FIR is that the first accused, the driver, had committed sexual assault on the victim girl, who was studying in the school in which the petitioners are the Secretary, Headmaster, and Clerk, respectively; that when the victim girl informed them about the sexual assault committed by the driver, they requested her not to file a case against the driver and also insisted that she obtain a Transfer Certificate from the school; and that, therefore, the petitioners are also liable for the offence under Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations are inherently improbable and false; that the school in which the petitioners are employed has a very good reputation; that it is highly improbable that the petitioners would have asked the victim girl not to file a complaint after coming to know of the sexual assault allegedly committed by the first accused; that the impugned prosecution is, therefore, attended with mala fides; and that there is a delay of nearly 25 days in the registration of the FIR, and the allegations against the petitioners are an afterthought.

4. The learned counsel for the third respondent/defacto complainant, who is the mother of the victim girl, would submit that the third respondent/defacto complainant had not made any allegations against the petitioners; that she had only complained against the first accused, who had committed sexual assault on the victim girl; and that she was not aware of the contents of the FIR. He has also filed affidavits in all the Criminal Original Petitions sworn by the third respondent/defacto complainant, in which she had deposed that the complaint was prepared by one Arunachalam.

5. The third respondent/defacto complainant is present before this Court in person. She is identified by M/s.M.Meenambigai, Women Head Constable, All Women Police Station, Ambasamudram. She confirms that she was not aware of the contents of the FIR; and that she had not lodged any complaint against the petitioners herein. She further states that the petitioners were not involved in shielding or concealing the offence in any manner.

6. The scanned copy of he affidavit filed in one of the c