X ETC.versusRAJESH KUMAR & ORS.

           [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1909 : 2025 INSC 579

                            X Etc.
                              v.
                     Rajesh Kumar & Ors.
          (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2143-2146 of 2025)
                            23 April 2025
[Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]


                      Issue for Consideration
 Whether the High Court erred in quashing FIRs registered under
 the POCSO Act against the respondent no.1.

                             Headnotes†
 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 –
 ss.7, 8 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sexual assault – Multiple
 allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the students against
 the respondent no.1, a computer teacher – One of the FIRs
 was settled by respondent no.1 – High Court quashed the
 remaining FIRs – Challenge to:
 Held: High Court ought not to have ignored the fact that respondent
 No.1 was a teacher and the victims were his students – Preliminary
 statements recorded before the Police reveal that prima facie
 ingredients of offences under the POCSO Act, for the purpose
 of subjecting respondent No.1 to a trial, were made out – High
 Court wrongly construed that s.7 of the POCSO Act will not be
 attracted unless there is an act involving physical contact with
 sexual intent – s.7 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 about
 sanitary napkins and sending vulgar images, provides sufficient
1910                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    basis to infer sexual intent for the purpose of proceeding with trial –
    This was a fit case where respondent No.1 ought to have been
    subjected to trial – This is extremely important keeping in view the
    fact that respondent No.1 has successfully prevailed upon one of
    the victims, who allegedly “settled the dispute” and paved the way
    for respondent No.1 to get one of the cases quashed – Impugned
    order set aside – Directions issued to Trial Court to proceed with
    the trial. [Paras 4, 5, 7]

                                List of Acts
    Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Penal
    Code, 1860.

                             List of Keywords
    Sexual Assault; Sexual Intent; Computer teacher; Teacher-
    student relationship; Position of authority and trust; Multiple
    allegations; Multiple FIRs; Inappropriate behavior including asking
    invasive questions; Holding hands of students; Sent vulgar and
    obscene images on WhatsApp group; Prima facie; “Settled the
    dispute”; ‘Any other act with sexual intent which involves physical
    contact’.

                            Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
    2143-2146 of 2025
    From the Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2022 of the High
    Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRLMC Nos. 8523, 8525, 8536
    and 8537 of 2019

                         Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Appellants:
    P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv., Junais P., Prasanth K., Ms. Anna Oommen
    (for M/s. Lead Counsel).
    Advs. for the Respondents:
    Thomas P Joseph, Sr. Adv., Bijo Mathew Joy, Ms. Gifty
    Marium Joseph, Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Mrs.
    Ashly Harshad.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        1911

                      X Etc. v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order

1.   Leave granted.
2.   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 (for short, `the POCSO Act’), and possibly certain provisions of
     the Indian Penal Code (for short, `IPC’). The victims were students in
     a school in Tirur, where respondent No.1 was a Computer Teacher. It
     was alleged that he behaved inappropriately with the female students
     of the school besides asking obnoxious questions like how many
     sanitary napkins they had used in a year. It was alleged that he would
     hold the hands of the students in the computer lab while using mouse
     in the lab and do other inappropriate actions. The female students
     made complaints to the Principal of the school, who directed the
     Head of the Department to inspect the computer lab where several
     women’s magazines and CDs containing questionable content were
     recovered. A show-cause notice was issued to respondent No.1, who
     is stated to have apologized and promised to improve his conduct
     in future.
3.   Respondent No.1, however, allegedly did not mend his ways and
     continued to misbehave with the female students to the extent that
     he sent vulgar and obscene images on the whatsApp group, thinking
     that these numbers belong to the students whereas the students had
     actually given the numbers of their parents. Again complaints were
     made; the police was called and respondent No.1 was arrested.
     It seems that respondent No.1 exerted some influence, as the
     statements of all the victim students were not recorded, except that
     of a 19 year’s old student. The Parents Teachers Association then
     filed a Writ Petition before the High Court and it was only upon judicial
     intervention that an FIR was finally registered against respondent
     No.1. Shockingly, respondent No.1 claimed to have entered into a
     settlement with the 19 year’s old student, and based upon that, he
     sought quashing of the FIR before the High Court. Meanwhile, the
     statements of some of the victim students were recorded and based
     thereupon, five separate FIRs, i.e., FIR Crime Nos. 291, 292, 293,
     294 and 295 of 2017, were registered against respondent No.1 on the
     same day, i.e., 04.04.2017 at Tirur Police Station under Sections 7
1912                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     and 8 of the POCSO Act. As stated earlier, FIR Crime No.294/2017
     was `settled’ by respondent No.1 with the victim, who was stated to
     be 19 years’ old student. Respondent No.1, thereafter, approached
     the High Court seeking quashing of the remaining FIRs and 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.”
4.   All that we wish to observe at this stage is that the High Court ought
     not to have ignored the fact that respondent No.1 was a teacher and
     the victims were his students. The preliminary statements recorded
     before the Police Authorities reveal that prima facie ingredients
     of offences under the POCSO Act, for the purpose of subjecting
     respondent No.1 to a trial, are made out. We are 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. Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines ‘sexual assailt’
     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 about sanitary napkins
     and sending vulgar images, provides sufficient basis to infer sexual
     intent for the purpose of proceeding with trial. The issue has been
     apparently pre-judged by the High Court without even permitting the
     victims to enter witness box and depose about various instances,
     which are briefly noted in their preliminary statements.
5.   We refrain from making further observations at this stage as they may
     prejudice respondent No.1 or anyone else. Regardless thereto, 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
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      1913

                         X Etc. v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.


     witnesses and their statements to be recorded at the earliest. This
     is extremely important keeping in view the fact that respondent No.1
     has successfully prevailed upon one of the victims, who allegedly
     “settled the dispute” and paved the way for respondent No.1 to get
     one of the cases quashed.
6.   It is pertinent to note that well before the impugned judgment of the
     High Court, the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had
     been filed and even the statements of some of the victims, under
     Section 164 Cr.P.C., had already been recorded. Unfortunately, all
     these aspects were not highlighted before the High Court.
7.   For the reasons aforestated, and without going into further details,
     the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, and the Trial
     Court before whom the chargesheets have been filed, is directed to
     proceed with the trial. The matter regarding framing of charges shall
     be concluded within two weeks. The Trial Court is further directed
     to take up the matter at least twice in a month and first of all record
     the statements of all the alleged victims.
8.   The prosecution will ensure that the victims are treated as protected
     witnesses. Respondent No.1 shall not be permitted, in any manner,
     to contact the victims and/or influence them directly or indirectly.
9.   The Management of the M.M.M. Higher Secondary School, Koottayi
     is directed to keep respondent No.1 under suspension till the
     conclusion of trial. The Management, however, shall be at liberty to
     hold domestic enquiry against respondent No.1 in accordance with
     the prescribed rules independent of the criminal prosecution restored
     by us. Ordered accordingly.
10. The appeals stand allowed in the above terms.
11. As a result, the pending interlocutory application also stands disposed
    of.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey