Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Quashing POCSO FIRs; Directs Immediate Trial and Protection of Victims

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions against a Kerala High Court order which had quashed multiple FIRs registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and certain IPC provisions. The appeals challenged the High Court's conclusion that the accused teacher's conduct did not exhibit "sexual intent" and sought restoration of criminal proceedings.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned High Court judgment and directed that the Trial Court before which the chargesheets had been filed proceed with trial. The Court noted that "This case is a glaring example of denial of justice to the victims of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012" and held that prima facie ingredients of offences under the POCSO Act were made out on the basis of preliminary statements and the teacher‑student context. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines 'sexual assault' to include situations where a person 'with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration'. The allegations that respondent No.1 would hold the hands of female students in the computer lab while using the mouse clearly falls within the ambit of 'any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact'. In the context of a teacher‑student relationship, where the teacher is in a position of authority and trust, such physical contact, when accompanied by other inappropriate behavior including asking invasive questions ... and sending vulgar images, provides sufficient basis to infer sexual intent for the purpose of proceeding with trial." The Court directed that framing of charges be concluded within two weeks, that the Trial Court take the matter up at least twice a month and record statements of all alleged victims as a priority. It further ordered that victims be treated as protected witnesses and that the accused be restrained from contacting or influencing them.

Background

The dispute arose from complaints by female students of a higher secondary school in Tirur against their computer teacher. Allegations included inappropriate touching — reportedly holding students' hands while using the computer mouse — asking intrusive questions about sanitary napkin use, recovery of women's magazines and questionable CDs from the lab, and sending vulgar images on a WhatsApp group where numbers belonged to students' parents. Initial administrative action included a show‑cause notice and an apology by the teacher; subsequent complaints led to police involvement and arrest. Five FIRs (Crime Nos. 291–295 of 2017) were registered on 04.04.2017 under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. One FIR (Crime No. 294/2017) stood quashed after the accused alleged a settlement with a 19‑year‑old student.

The parents' association petitioned the High Court when investigation and recording of statements stalled; the High Court, after conducting what the Supreme Court described as a mini‑trial and noting preliminary statements, concluded that it was "not possible to infer or impute that the said act has been done by the petitioner with any sexual intent" and quashed the remaining proceedings. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in pre‑judging issues without permitting victims to testify and overlooked that investigation had been completed, chargesheets filed and some Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements recorded. The Supreme Court restored the criminal trial, emphasised protection of victims' identities and witness status, directed suspension of the accused by the school management until trial conclusion while permitting an independent domestic enquiry, and disposed of the pending interlocutory application.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 579; Criminal Appeal Nos. (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 12563-12566 of 2022) Case Title: X etc. v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment text For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment text