BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.1333 and 1334 of 2026 Chellaiyan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women South Police Station, Thiruvidaimaruthur, Thanjavur District. ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

2.Sakthivel ... 1^st Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records of the learned Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Thanjavur in Crl.M.P.No.352 of 2025 in S.S.C. No.21 of 2025 by judgment dated 10.11.2025 and set aside the order of the Courts below and acquit the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jayakumar For R-1 : Mr.M.Karunaniti Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

For R-2 : Mr.K.Karnan

ORDER

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order of Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Thanjavur in Crl.M.P.No.352 of 2025 in S.S.C.No.21 of 2025 dated 10.11.2025, whereby, the discharge petition filed by petitioner under Section 250 of BNSS came to be dismissed.

2. Brief facts:

The victim girl is presently studying X Standard. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place while she was studying VIII Standard during the academic year 2023-2024. The petitioner was employed as Tamil Teacher in the School, where the victim girl was studying. The victim girl informed the District Child Protection Officer that petitioner stated as follows:

“ehd; cd;idNa epidjJ; fn; fhzb; Uff; pNwd;. eP ahiuahtJ love gzw; pah? Vd; vdd; plk; Ngrkhlw; vdW; Nfll; jhfTk>; tPlb; wF; nryY; kN; ghJ tz;bapy; Kdd; hb clf; hU nfhzL; Ngha; tpLfpNwd; vdW; $wpajhfTk;> khiy Neu tFgg; pdN; ghJ> wait gz;Z vyN; yhUk; NghdgpwF jdpah Nghfyhk.;”

A complaint was thus lodged by the father of victim girl on 27.09.2024 and an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner in Crime No.18 of 2024 for offences under Section 8, 9(a)(iii), 11(2) and 12 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act”) on

28.09.2024.

2.1. Subsequently, on 08.10.2024, Investigation Officer had given a requisition letter to the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvidaimaruthur for recording the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C after 28 days from the date of complaint.

2.2. In the 164 Cr.P.C statement, the victim girl had stated that the complaint was mere act of revenge and vindictive inasmuch as the petitioner had reprimanded her for talking to a boy of the same class. Offended, the victim girl submitted a complaint which she stated was false and imaginary rather vindictive. However, the discharge petition filed by petitioner came to be dismissed on the premise that merely because the victim girl had failed to support the prosecution case subsequently after lodging the complaint, the accused cannot be discharged, more so, when there are materials to show that that the victim girl had spoken about the alleged occurrence to her father, Headmaster and other officials of District Child Protection Unit.

3. When the matter was called on 05.02.2026, learned counsel for the second respondent as well as the petitioner had jointly submitted that the criminal revision may be allowed. The victim girl's father was present before this Court on 06.02.2026 and submitted that the complaint was imaginary and vindictive. However, this Court, with a view to ensure that the above statement by the counsel and the father of the victim girl was not out of any coercion, directed the victim girl to be present in the chamber on the next date of hearing, i.e., on 09.02.2026. On that day, victim girl was present and when she was enquired in the chamber, she stated the following:

“ehd; jQr; hT+H khtll; k>; Fwprr; p muR caHepiygg; ss; papy; gjj; hk; tFgG; gbjJ; tUfpNwd;. flej; 25.09.2024 mdW; ji