[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
S.Raja Durai Lingam vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 30 April, 2026
Crl.OP(MD)No.16736 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16736 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.10502 and 10504 of 2024
S.Rajadurai Lingam
... Petitioner/Accused No.
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep . by the Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Alangulam,
Tenkasi District.
Crime No.1/2024 .... Respondents / Complainant
2. Johny Jasmine ... Respondent /
De-facto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in
Spl.C.C.No. 151/2024 on the file of the learned Special Court for
POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli district and quash the same as against
the petitioner.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.16736 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand
For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
For R-2 : Mr.J.Ashok
ORDER
The inherent jurisdiction of this Court preserved under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, inhering from
the well-established principles governing Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973,
exists not as a routine appellate correctional power, but as a
constitutional safeguard against abuse of criminal process and to
secure the ends of justice.
2. While prosecutions under the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, are ordinarily to be approached with
utmost sensitivity and circumspection, the gravity attached to
allegations under the statute cannot eclipse the equally compelling
duty of constitutional Courts to prevent misuse of penal law where
the materials, even taken at face value, do not disclose the
ingredients of the alleged offences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Courts are indeed slow in exercising quash jurisdiction in
prosecutions under special statutes involving child protection. Yet,
where the criminal process itself appears to have been triggered
upon exaggeration of a trivial episode, or where the victim herself
disowns the substratum of accusation, continuance of prosecution
would itself amount to injustice.
4. It is in the aforesaid legal background that the present
petition seeking quashment of proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.151 of
2024 falls for consideration.
5. The petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.C.C.No.151 of 2024
pending on the file of the learned Special Court for POCSO Act
Cases, Tirunelveli, for offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section
506(i) IPC.
Case of the prosecution:
6. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the complaint and final
report, is that the victim girl, then a student of VII Standard in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Venkateshwarapuram Village Committee Higher Secondary School,
allegedly disclosed to her mother on 04.01.2024 that on 12.12.2023,
when she had gone to the staff room, the petitioner, then serving as
Tamil Teacher in the school, allegedly subjected her to “bad touch”
and threatened her with academic consequences if she disclosed the
incident.
7. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second
respondent/de-facto complainant, Crime No.1 of 2024 was
registered, investigation was undertaken, final report was filed and
cognizance was taken in Spl.C.C.No.151 of 2024.
Grounds for quash:
8. The petitioner seeks quashment principally on the following
grounds:
(i) that the prosecution is actuated by mala fides and
institutional vendetta arising from service-related disputes
concerning promotion;
(ii) that the present prosecution is a sequel to an earlier
allegedly engineered criminal case already quashed by this Court;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iii) that multiple inconsistencies exist between the complaint,
Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of
the prosecutrix;
(iv) that the complaint is inherently improbable and bears the
imprint of exaggeration and tutoring;
(v) that the ingredients of Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act and
Section 506(i) IPC are not made out even prima facie;
(vi) that the prosecution falls within the parameters of
malicious prosecution illustratively recognized in State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal1.
Submissions on either side:
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner, a school teacher, has been victimised owing to internal
management hostility arising out of service matters. It was
contended that the present complaint is the second in a chain of
motivated prosecutions, the earlier case having already been
quashed by this Court after finding absence of substance.
1 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Placing reliance on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2 and
Mahmood Ali and others v. State of U.P. and others3, it was
argued that this Court, while exercising quash jurisdiction, is not
confined merely to a formal reading of allegations, but can look into
attendant circumstances to discern abuse of process. The learned
counsel would submit that the alleged act, even taken at its highest,
is a product of exaggeration of a classroom disciplinary episode and
does not satisfy the legal ingredients of “sexual intent”, which is the
gravamen of the offence under Section 7 POCSO Act, 2012.
11. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first
respondent submitted that a charge sheet has been laid after
investigation and ordinarily disputed factual matters ought to be left
to trial.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent,
however, submitted, consistent with the statements made before this
Court, that the complaint arose out of misunderstanding generated
in the context of the petitioner scolding the child and that neither the
2 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
3 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
de-facto complainant nor the child desired continuation of
prosecution.
Point for consideration:
13. The point that arises for consideration is whether the
continuation of prosecution in Spl.C.C.No.151 of 2024 would
amount to abuse of process warranting exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS?
14. The principles governing quash jurisdiction stand
authoritatively settled in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal4,
particularly the category dealing with proceedings manifestly
attended with mala fides.
15. Equally, in Mahmood Ali and others v. State of U.P.
and others5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that in cases
alleging malicious prosecution, Courts may look beyond drafting
artifices in the complaint and examine attendant circumstances.
4 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
5 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. It is also trite that in offences under Section 7 POCSO,
2012, sexual intent is not incidental but foundational. In the
absence of prima facie material disclosing such intent, the penal
provision cannot be mechanically attracted.
17. Section 7 of the POCSO Act, 2012, contemplates sexual
assault involving physical contact with sexual intent. “Sexual intent”
is thus the indispensable mens rea. In the case on hand, the material
before this Court does not disclose prima facie any act bearing sexual
overtone. On the contrary, the victim herself, upon interaction with
this Court, categorically disowned any allegation of sexual abuse.
18. This Court interacted with the child victim in camera. She
was conscious, coherent, capable of understanding questions and
unequivocally stated that she had not been subjected to sexual
abuse by the petitioner. Once the very alleged victim displaces the
prosecutorial foundation, continuance of prosecution under Sections
7 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, would be wholly artificial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19. The allegation of intimidation is equally unsustainable. The
supposed statement that the child may not be permitted to write
examinations, even as alleged, emerges in the setting of classroom
discipline and lacks ingredients of criminal intimidation under
Section 506(i) IPC. Mere disciplinary admonition or academic
warning cannot be elevated into criminal intimidation absent real
threat contemplated by penal law.
20. Of considerable significance is the stand of both the de-
facto complainant and victim before this Court that the complaint
arose out of misunderstanding following scolding by the teacher.
Though quashment in serious offences is not founded merely on
compromise or no-objection, where the very factual substratum
disappears, continuation of prosecution becomes oppressive.
21. This Court finds merit in invoking the principle embodied
in Section 95 IPC that trivial acts causing slight harm beyond the
threshold of criminal law do not warrant prosecution. Corrective
classroom discipline, absent anything more, cannot be criminalised
under a stringent child protection statute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22. The surrounding circumstances, including the antecedent
litigation, prior quashed prosecution, and present recantation by the
victim, lend weight to the petitioner’s plea that the present
prosecution is an abuse of process.
23. Criminal law cannot be permitted to become an instrument
to convert pedagogic correction into sexual crime. This Court is
therefore satisfied that the present matter falls within the well-
recognised parameters warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
24. Allegations under the POCSO Act, 2012, deserve utmost
seriousness; false or exaggerated invocation of its provisions,
however, equally undermines the sanctity of the statute meant for
genuine victims. A teacher discharging legitimate disciplinary
functions cannot be exposed to criminal prosecution upon
exaggerated or misconceived allegations, for such misuse has the
potential to corrode educational institutions themselves.
25. This Court is conscious that child protection laws are to
shield the vulnerable, not to punish ordinary human interactions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bereft of criminality. Where prosecution rests not upon a real offence
but upon misunderstanding amplified into accusation, judicial
intervention is not merely permissible but imperative.
26. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The
proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.151 of 2024 on the file of the learned
Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli District, are hereby
quashed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
30.04.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
To
1.The Judge,
Special Court for POCSO Act Cases,
Tirunelveli district.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Alangulam,
Tenkasi District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
30.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
