False Complaint Against School Teacher By Student: Madras HC Allows Discharge Plea In POCSO Case
The Madras High Court noted that the victim had not only written letters withdrawing her complaint before the registration of the FIR but also confirmed this in her statement before the Magistrate.

The Madras High Court allowed a school teacher’s Discharge Petition in a POCSO case after noting that the victim made a false complaint against him as he allegedly caused hindrance in her love affair with her boyfriend.
The Court discharged a school teacher (Petitioner) who had been accused under Section 11(i) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, punishable under Section 12. The charges were based on allegations that the Petitioner had shown pornographic videos to his student (victim) and caused further harassment by asking her for her waist size.
A Single Bench of Justice Sunder Mohan held, “This is a case where the victim had not only given letters withdrawing her complaint even before the registration of the FIR on 13.03.2024, she had also confirmed the said fact in her statement before the learned Magistrate and in her statement given during investigation to the respondent. The defacto complainant and the mother of the victim have also reiterated that the complaint was false. In such circumstances, the trial would only be an empty formality and the petitioner cannot be subjected to the ordeal of trial.”
Advocate R Balavijayan represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor K.S. Mohandass appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The prosecution alleged that the Petitioner, while taking the victim for medical treatment in his car, had shown her pornographic videos and harassed her. However, the victim subsequently submitted a letter to the defacto complainant, the headmaster of the school, admitting that the complaint was false and made out of anger because the Petitioner had reprimanded her and her boyfriend.
The victim reiterated her stance before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC and during the investigation, stating that she had lodged the complaint falsely. Her mother and the defacto complainant also confirmed this in their statements.
The Petitioner had filed a Petition challenging the Order dismissing his application filed under Section 227 of the CrPC for discharge before the Trial Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Madras High Court noted that the victim had not only written letters withdrawing her complaint before the registration of the FIR but also confirmed this fact in her statement before the Magistrate.
“Though the learned Judge had not accepted these letters stating that the handwriting in the letters differed, this Court is of the view that the contents of the letter is confirmed by the statement made by the victim before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. That apart the statements made by the victim, her mother and the headmaster and the defacto complainant to the investigating officer would all confirm that the victim was upset with the petitioner since he was an hindrance to her love affair with her boy friend and hence she had made a false complaint against the petitioner,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dismissing the petitioner's request for discharge cannot be sustained and therefore, the order…is set aside and consequently, the petitioner is discharged.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: N.Krishnasamy v. The State (Crl.R.C.No.2008 of 2024)