S. Rajadurai Lingam (Petitioner) versus The State of Tamil Nadu & Johny Jasmine (Respondents) – Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16736 of 2024 (with Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.10502 and 10504 of 2024) – cited as Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16736 of 2024 – April 30, 2026 – by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice L. Victoria Gowri
Petitioner and Impugned Proceedings
The petitioner, S. Rajadurai Lingam (a school teacher cited as Accused No. 1), instituted a Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (inhering from Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking to quash criminal proceedings in Spl.C.C.No. 151 of 2024 pending on the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli District. The impugned proceedings originated from Crime No. 1 of 2024 registered by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Alangulam, Tenkasi District, wherein cognizance was taken against the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner challenges the continuation of these criminal proceedings as an abuse of judicial process arising out of institutional vendetta and service-related disputes.
Factual Matrix
According to the prosecution’s case, a female student of Class VII at Venkateshwarapuram Village Committee Higher Secondary School disclosed to her mother on January 4, 2024, that on December 12, 2023, while present in the staff room, the petitioner (then serving as a Tamil teacher) subjected her to “bad touch” and threatened her with academic consequences if she reported the incident. Based on a complaint lodged by the student’s mother (the de-facto complainant), an FIR was registered, an investigation was conducted, and a charge sheet was subsequently filed leading to cognizance by the Special Court. However, during attendant judicial proceedings, the victim girl unequivocally disowned the allegations during an in-camera judicial interaction with the Court, confirming that no sexual abuse occurred and that the complaint stemmed from a misunderstanding following classroom scolding and disciplinary admonition.
Core Legal Arguments
The petitioner contended that the prosecution was actuated by mala fides and institutional hostility connected to service-related promotion disputes, pointing out that an earlier engineered criminal case against him had already been quashed by the High Court. The petitioner argued that material inconsistencies existed across the complaint and statutory statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and that the indispensable mens rea of “sexual intent” under Section 7 of the POCSO Act was completely absent, reducing the incident to an exaggerated classroom disciplinary episode. Conversely, the respondent State maintained that a charge sheet had been laid post-investigation and that disputed factual issues ought to be left to trial. The de-facto complainant submitted that the complaint arose strictly from a misunderstanding following classroom scolding and affirmed that neither she nor the victim desired the continuation of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court established that “sexual intent” is the foundational and indispensable mens rea for an offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and in the absence of prima facie material establishing such intent, penal provisions under the statute cannot be mechanically attracted to criminalize legitimate pedagogic admonition or classroom discipline. Furthermore, invoking Section 95 of the IPC (de minimis non curat lex) and relying on established quashment parameters under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., the Court held that where the factual substratum of an accusation collapses due to the victim disowning the core allegations, continuing prosecution amounts to oppressive misuse of criminal process, warranting the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash the proceedings.
Purpose of Child Protection Laws & Imperative of Judicial Intervention
This Court is conscious that child protection laws are to shield the vulnerable, not to punish ordinary human interactions 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.
Final Disposition
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
Judgments Cited
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: Cited regarding the established parameters for exercising inherent quashing jurisdiction, specifically highlighting category guidelines where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted maliciously with ulterior motives.
- Mahmood Ali and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613: Cited to affirm that courts exercising quashment jurisdiction in cases alleging malicious prosecution are not restricted to a formal reading of complaint allegations, but must examine attendant circumstances and look beyond drafting artifices to prevent abuse of process.
Acts and Sections :-
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Section 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Section 482, Section 161, Section 164
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Section 7, Section 8
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 506(i), Section 95
