Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

Absence of Sexual Intent Does Not Justify POCSO Charges: Madras High Court Discharges College Student

02 November 2024 11:19 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


Madras High Court, presided over by Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, allowed a criminal revision petition and discharged a college student accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case involved allegations of house trespass and an attempt to revive a past relationship with a minor girl. The Court found no evidence of sexual intent or assault and quashed the charges, dismissing the case against the petitioner, Nithin.
The Court emphasized that no sexual intent or activity was proven based on the evidence, including the statements of the victim and her family:
"The uncontroverted statements of witnesses and the act of the petitioner, even if taken to be true, cannot be termed as an intentional sexual act."
The Court held that the petitioner's actions were motivated by an attempt to revive a consensual relationship from their school years, not by any sexual intent, thereby ruling out the application of the POCSO Act.
The criminal revision petition, Crl. R.C. No. 1340 of 2024, was filed by the petitioner, Nithin, a college student, challenging the rejection of his discharge plea by the Special Court for POCSO cases in Coimbatore. Nithin was accused of entering the victim's house and attempting to force her to rekindle a relationship, leading to charges under the POCSO Act and house trespass under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The victim and the petitioner were former schoolmates who had been in a relationship during their time in 12th and 10th grades. After the relationship ended, the petitioner allegedly followed the victim and attempted to contact her. On November 8, 2022, it was alleged that Nithin entered the victim's home and tried to coerce her into reviving the relationship. The victim’s mother arrived, and a complaint was lodged three days later.
The Court carefully analyzed the statements of the victim and her mother, which confirmed that while Nithin had attempted to revive the relationship, no sexual assault or intent was involved. The Court noted:
"The desire to act in a manner in order to fulfill sexual desire is not there. The sexual desire is an emotional and motivational state that denotes a person's intention in sexual activities."
Given this, the Court ruled that the petitioner’s actions did not fall within the scope of the POCSO Act, which specifically requires evidence of sexual intent or assault.
During the proceedings, the victim and her family expressed their lack of interest in pursuing the case. Both appeared before the Court and confirmed that they did not wish to proceed, taking into consideration the petitioner's young age, his education, and his future. The Court further noted:

"The victim girl and her mother stated before this Court that they are not inclined to proceed against the petitioner considering his young age, studies, and life."
The petitioner also submitted an affidavit confirming that he would not cause any future disturbance to the victim or her family, focusing instead on his education and career.
Given the absence of evidence and the victim's family's willingness to withdraw the complaint, the Court ruled that no case was made out against the petitioner and ordered his discharge. The Court also provided protection for the petitioner’s future prospects:
"The case and its record shall not be used against the petitioner in any future context, including employment."
This ruling ensures that the petitioner’s educational and career prospects remain unaffected by the case.
The Madras High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and discharged Nithin from all charges. The case was deemed to be based on an attempt to revive a failed relationship rather than any criminal intent, and the POCSO Act was found inapplicable due to the lack of sexual intent or assault.

 

Date of Decision: 18 October 2024
Nithin v. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Pollachi, Coimbatore District

 

Latest Legal News