01Facts
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, described as A1 and a Social Science teacher at St. Joseph High School, misbehaved with a 13-year-old student in Class VII.
¶ 1–3 · pp. 2–3The first respondent registered Crime No. 30 of 2024 on the de facto complainant’s complaint and, after investigation, filed a final report.
¶ 1–3 · pp. 2–3The Principal District and Sessions Court, Kancheepuram, took cognizance in Spl. S.C. No. 155 of 2025 for offences under the POCSO Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
¶ 1–3 · pp. 2–3The petitioner sought to quash those proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
¶ 1–3 · pp. 2–302Issues
i.Whether the proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 155 of 2025 should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS
¶ 1 · p. 2ii.Whether the High Court could assess disputed factual matters and the evidentiary merits of the allegations at the quashment stage
¶ 5–9 · pp. 3–503Law Applied
Section 528 BNSS was invoked as the basis for the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings.
¶ 1 · p. 2The Court relied on Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2019 (4) SCC 351, for the principle that a High Court should not assess witness statements for inconsistencies when deciding a quash petition; such assessment belongs to the trial or appellate court.
¶ 6 · pp. 3–4It relied on Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna, 2019 (10) SCC 686, for the principle that disputed facts and the accused’s defence are to be tested at trial, not resolved in quash proceedings.
¶ 7 · p. 4It also relied on M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr., Crl.A. No. 1817 of 2019, for the rule that the Court should determine whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of an offence and whether the prerequisites for cognizance are met, without enquiring into the validity of the evidence.
¶ 8 · pp. 4–5Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528Section 180
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 11Section 12Section 9Section 10Section 21Section 19
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 75Section 79
04Reasoning
On examining the final report and witness statements, the Court found specific allegations against the petitioner that were sufficient to attract the charged offences.
¶ 5–9 · pp. 3–5Whether those allegations could be established, and the petitioner’s disputed factual grounds, required appreciation of evidence at trial.
¶ 5–9 · pp. 3–5Applying the cited precedents, the Court declined to evaluate the evidence or determine whether the proceedings were malicious at the quashment stage.
¶ 5–9 · pp. 3–505Holding
The Court declined to quash the proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 155 of 2025 and dismissed the Criminal Original Petition.
¶ 10–11 · p. 6It left the petitioner at liberty to raise all grounds before the trial court; the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
¶ 10–11 · p. 6Original Court PDF
JesudassvsThe State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
