Can a High Court asked to quash an FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 weigh the victims' preliminary statements and conclude that no sexual intent is made out?

Paragraph 3Respondent 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 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.”

Paragraph 4All 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.