CHENNAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a Pocso case against a Tamil teacher in Tenkasi, observing that child protection laws are intended to safeguard genuine victims and not criminalise ordinary disciplinary actions lacking criminal intent.
Justice L Victoria Gowri noted that while offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act must be treated seriously, the sanctity of the legislation should also be preserved as its primary objective is to protect genuine victims.
The court observed that exposing a teacher performing a legitimate disciplinary function to criminal prosecution on exaggerated allegations would amount to the misuse of the Act and could corrode educational institutions.
The case arose from an incident involving a Class 7 student of Venkateshwarapuram Village Committee Higher Secondary School in Tenkasi. The girl had informed her mother that when she went to the staff room on January 4, 2024, the Tamil teacher allegedly subjected her to "bad touch" and threatened her with academic consequences if she disclosed the incident.
Based on the complaint, the Inspector of the Alangulam All Women Police Station registered a case under Sections 7 and 8 of the Pocso Act, 2012, and Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code.
The teacher, S Rajadurai Lingam, subsequently moved the Madras High Court seeking to quash the prosecution pending before the Special Court for Pocso Act cases in Tirunelveli district.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the teacher had been victimised due to internal management hostility arising out of service-related issues. The counsel further contended that the allegations stemmed from an exaggerated classroom disciplinary incident.
The State government counsel submitted that the chargesheet had already been filed following investigation and argued that disputed factual issues should ordinarily be decided during trial.
The court, however, allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the teacher.
The court noted that there was no material in the present case to suggest that the alleged act had any sexual overtone. It further observed that there was nothing to indicate criminal intimidation on the part of the teacher and that the incident appeared to be merely a disciplinary action. The court also recorded that the victim herself had disowned any allegation of sexual abuse.
"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," the court observed.