Disposed

Thiruthangal Nadar Vidyalaya v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC28 Oct 2024CRL OP/26859/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Management of a school filed a criminal petition to quash its implication in an FIR under the POCSO Act for an incident occurring outside school premises. The High Court disposed of the petition after recording submissions that while the school faced allegations of non-reporting, the impugned order had been reviewed without a separate articulated opinion on the prayer.

What the court decided

AI extract

Thiruthangal Nadar Vidyalaya Vs the State Rep… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.26859 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.26859 of 2024

¶7

Thiruthangal Nadar Vidyalaya. ... Petitioner/4 th Accused /versus/

¶8

1. State by, The Inspector of Police, W-15, All Women's Police Station, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019. ... 1 st Respondent/Complainant 2. Abirami. ... 2 nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., pleased t o call for the records in Crime No.6 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same, in so far as the petitioner school management is concerned.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thankasivan For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan. Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

1/5

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.26859 of 2024

¶15

The petitioner herein is the Management of the School. Being aggrieved by summon issued for enquiry on the complaint in F.I.R.No.6 of 2024, dated 22.09.2024 for the offences under Section 12 and 21 of POCSO Act, the petition is filed to quash the said complaint on the ground that for the incident which took place outside the school campus involving the students of the school, cannot be reason to array the School Management as an accused.

¶16

2. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the 1 st respondent submits that on registration of F.I.R, the petitioner was summoned to participate in the enquiry, they participated in the enquiry and statement also recorded.

¶17

3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/4 th accused states that the Management is ready to cooperate with the investigation but under the guise of investigation, the staff of the petitioner Management should not be harassed.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

2/5

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.26859 of 2024

¶21

4. T he Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the 1^st

¶22

respondent submits that since there is a specific allegation made by the defacto complainant that the Management is trying to protect the erred students, the management has been arrayed as one of the suspected accused, but if there is sufficient material available to show that the management has not protected the offenders and has taken necessary steps to discipline the erred students, necessary decision will be taken.

¶23

5 . Also, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that

¶24

the petitioner is suspected for not reporting an offence against the child, though the same was within the knowledge and to rule out that omission to report is not malafide, the petitioner has been summoned.

¶25

6 . In the above circumstances, the respondent police shall not unnecessarily disturb the staff of the petitioner Management. If at all, the respondent police want to enquire the petitioner Management/staff, it shall be done only by causing summons.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

3/5

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.26859 of 2024

¶29

7 . With this observation, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed

¶30

of.

¶31

28.10.2024

¶32

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bsm

¶33

¶34

1.The Inspector of Police, W-15, All Women's Police Station, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019.

¶35

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.26859 of 2024

¶38

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶39

bsm

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.26859 of 2024

¶41

28.10.2024

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

5/5

Thiruthangal Nadar Vidyalaya v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Thiruthangal Nadar Vidyalaya v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Shanthi Vs Murugesan

M.Jayanthi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Stany Thekaekara Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

R.S. Mangayarkarasi, Vs Mr. S. Devarajan

B.Prabhakar Vs a.Uma Saraswathi

Paranjothi Vs the District Superindent of Police