'Insensitive' : Supreme Court Criticises Kerala HC For Quashing POCSO Case Against Teacher Accused Of Sexually Harassing Students

Deprecating the Kerala High Court for adopting an "insensitive" approach and quashing the FIR, the Supreme Court today restored criminal proceedings against a computer teacher of a government-aided school who was accused of sexually harassing students (mostly female).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh set aside the High Court order, while dealing with the plea of four victim-students, disappointed that the Court conducted a sort of mini-trial and pre-judged the issues.

"This case is a glaring example of denial of justice to the victims of offenses under the POCSO Act and possibly certain provisions of the IPC...vide the impugned judgment, the High Court has, after holding a mini trial and after taking note of the contents of the statements alleged to have been made by the victims at the preliminary stage, come to a conclusion that 'it is not possible to infer or impute that the said act has been done by the petitioner with any sexual intent'...

The preliminary statements recorded before the police authorities prima facie reveal that prima facie ingredients of offenses under the POCSO Act, for the purpose of subjecting respondent No.1 to a trial, are made out. We fail to understand as to how the High Court construed that Section 7 of the POCSO Act will not be attracted unless there is an act involving physical contact with sexual intent...The issue has been apparently pre-judged by the High Court without even permitting the victims to enter witness box and depose...we have no reason to doubt that this was a fit case where respondent No.1 ought to have been subjected to trial by ensuring that the identity of the victims was not revealed, they are treated as protected witnesses and their statements to be recorded at the earliest", the Court observed.

Considering the allegations levelled against the teacher and Section 7 of the POCSO Act, it further opined that there was sufficient basis to infer sexual intent.

"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 about sanitary napkins and sending vulgar images, provides sufficient basis to infer sexual intent for the purpose of proceeding with trial."

The Court found it "disturbing" that most of the victim-students belonged to minority communities, who could be prevented by social barriers from coming forward. "It's very disturbing that most of the victims targeted are from minority communities...though there are others also...probably thinking that because of the conservative, social barriers and all, the victims will not disclose," remarked Justice Kant.

The Court was also shocked by the fact that the accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of FIR after purportedly settling the "dispute" with one of the victims. It further opined that the accused seemingly had some sort of influence, inasmuch as the police did not record statements of all victims at the outset.

Deeming the High Court's approach "insensitive", the bench orally observed, "we are disappointed with the manner in which the High Court has acted in an insensitive manner, ignoring the fact that respondent No.1 was a teacher and the victims his students".

Directing the trial court to proceed with the trial, it said that statements of the alleged victims should be recorded first and the prosecution shall treat the victims as protected witnesses. The accused shall not be permitted to contact or attempt to influence the victims/witnesses, in any manner, the Court added.

The school, on the other hand, was directed to keep the accused under suspension till completion of trial. The management however was given liberty to proceed with domestic enquiry, independent of pending criminal prosecution.

Briefly put, as per allegations, the accused used to behave inappropriately with female students in the computer lab, touched them while teaching how to use the computers and asked them obnoxious questions about sanitary napkins. When the students complained, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the school and the Head of the Department recovered women magazines and CDs from the computer lab. A show-cause notice was issued to the accused, after which he apologized and undertook to mend his ways.

The misbehavior however continued and the accused even ended up sending vulgar photographs on what he perceived to be Whatsapp numbers of female students, although the same belonged to the students' parents. This time when the complaints were made, police came and arrested him. After judicial intervention, 5 separate FIRs were registered under Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act. In one of the cases, the accused approached the High Court for quashing of FIR, contending that the "dispute" had been settled with the complainant-victim.

Though chargesheet had been filed and statements of victims recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused being of the view that POCSO offenses require establishment of sexual intent. Challenging the High Court decision, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate PV Dinesh appeared for the petitioners (victims) and submitted that in 2015, when the students made complaint, the police did not act. It recorded statement of only one victim (aged 19 years) and the accused apparently settled with that one student. Later, the parent-teachers association went to the High Court and through judicial intervention, FIRs came to be registered.

Respondent No.1/accused was represented by Senior Advocate Thomas P Joseph, who argued that the complaint was belated and there were no explicit acts of harassment. He further submitted that the presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act was not applicable, and as such, there was violation of human rights of the accused.

Disappointed with the High Court's approach in quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused, Justice Kant exclaimed, "Most disturbing factor is that High Court is virtually running a mini trial. What business do they have to look into the statements, evaluate them and then come to a conclusion? For what purposes trial courts are there then?"

Ultimately, the Court allowed the petition and restored the criminal proceedings against the accused. 

Case Title: X Versus RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 12563-12566/2022

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Click here to read the order