LexX ETC. versus RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 magazin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.