Madras High Court
S.Raja Durai Lingam vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 7 December, 2023
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19046 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserved : 07/12/2023
Date of Pronounced : 20/02/2024
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.19046 of 2023
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.15048 and 15049 of 2023
S.Raja Durai Lingam : Petitioner/Accused
(Single)
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Alankulam Division,
Tenkasi District.
2.The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Alankulam,
Tenkasi District.
(Crime No.5 of 2023) : Respondents 1 and 2/
Complainants
3.Marimuthu : 3rd Respondent/
De-facto Complainant
PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the entire records pertaining to the case in Spl.CC
No.245 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for POCSO
Act Cases, Tirunelveli District and quash the same as
against the petitioner and pass such any or other orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19046 of 2023
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand
For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
For 3rd Respondent : Mr.S.Ashok
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the case in Special CC No.245 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli District.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that his 2nd son namely Esakkimuthu is studying in 8th Standard in the Village Higher Secondary School, Reddiyapatti. The accused belongs to some other community. The accused started to scold his son in the presence of the class students. Because of that, he was upset and dejected. That also continued, on 10/11/2022 at about 11.30 am, during the interval period. So, he stopped his study and informed the de-facto complainant about the mis-behaviour and scolding, etc. Enquiry reveals that the accused used to misbehave with other students also. On the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, who is the father of the student, a case in Crime No.5 of 2023 was registered for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19046 of 2023 offences under sections 11(1) & 12 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sections 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. After completing the investigation, final report was filed and it has been taken cognizance in Special CC No.245 of 2023 by the Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli.
3.Challenging the final report, taking cognizance by the Special Court, this petition is filed on the ground that none of the allegations mentioned, either in the complaint or in the final report attract any of the ingredients of the offences alleged.
4.Heard both sides.
5.Notice was ordered to the second respondent and he was also present in person before this court. The second respondent was required to produce the victim. Enquiry was made by me with the de-facto complainant and the victim. They stated that on the particular date of occurrence, the victim was scolded by this petitioner. Dejecting over the scolding only, the complaint was given by him. It is also stated that on the particular date of occurrence, the reason for scolding is that the victim https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19046 of 2023 went to the school without proper haircut. That was the reason for the petitioner stating that to do proper haircut and then come to the school.
6.According to the de-facto complainant, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner, either scolding his son by mentioning his physical appearance, but also referring to their caste name.
7.The petitioner was also present before this court and he has also stated that since because the victim attended to the school without proper haircut, he asked to correct himself, but somehow the complaint has been given as if he scolded the victim by calling his caste name.
8.Even though, the statement of the victim and the de-facto complainant shows that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to scold the victim, because of his community, but the petitioner ought to have warned the victim to come to the school in an appropriate manner or at least he ought to have taken the matter to the Headmaster. But without doing all these things, it appears that he scolded the victim. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19046 of 2023
9.By pointing out this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is a trivial issue between the class teacher and a student.
12.Section 95 of IPC is relevant for that purpose, which is extracted as under:-
“95.Act causing slight harm.-Noting is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
13.He would submit that it is only a trivial issue, which has been given criminal colour, apparently at the instance of internal enemies.
14.Now whatever it may be, it is seen that scolding of the victim by the petitioner due to his in-appropriate hair style, trouble arose.
15.Now the question, which arises for consideration is whether this is a fittest case to quash the proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19046 of 2023
16.Correcting a student asking him to come to the school in an appropriate manner is a moral duty of every teacher. That cannot be given a criminal colour. But something has gone out of the control of both parties.
17.It is very unfortunate that a class teacher is facing a criminal proceedings for minor offence. Even the ingredients of the offence under section 95 of IPC, sections 11(1) and 12 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2) (va) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
18.Sections 11(1)and 12 of the Act reads as under:-
“11.Sexual harassment-A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent,-
(i)utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture of exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19046 of 2023 “12.Punishment for sexual harassment.-Whenever, commits sexual harassment a child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
19.Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Act reads as under:-
“3(1)(r)-intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
“3(2)(va)-commits any offence
specified in the Schedule, against a
person or property, knowing that such
person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine.”
19.Similarly, section 3(1)(r) r/w section 3(2)(va) of the Act also prima facie does not attract, because absolutely, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to commit the crime upon the SC student.
Absolutely, community has no role here to play. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19046 of 2023
20.As mentioned above, issue has been given exaggeration and the complaint has been lodged, upon which the prosecution has also been initiated.
21.Even for the benefit of the victim, I am of the considered view that the prosecution may be terminated, for which, as mentioned above, the de-facto complainant has no objection.
22.In the result, this criminal original petition stands allowed. The case in Special CC No.245 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli is hereby quashed against the petitioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
20/02/2024 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19046 of 2023 To,
1.The Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Tiruelveli.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alankulam Division, Tenkasi District.
3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Alankulam, Tenkasi District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19046 of 2023 G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.OP(MD)No.19046 of 2023 20/02/2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10