"Teacher's Plea to Quash FIR Under POCSO Act Rejected: Court Emphasizes Need for Thorough Investigation"

Background:

Muniyappa was employed as a drawing teacher at Morarji Desai Residential School. On December 15, 2023, the Joint Director of the Social Welfare Department received a complaint through the control room, alleging that Muniyappa had recorded videos and taken photographs of minor girls at the school while they were changing clothes. This led to the registration of FIR No. 209/2023 under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act by the Masthi Police Station.

Legal Issue

Whether the FIR against Muniyappa under Section 12 of the POCSO Act should be quashed on the grounds of procedural irregularities and alleged malice.

Argument of the Parties

Petitioner's Argument

The investigation began unlawfully before the FIR was registered, violating legal procedures.

The complaint was motivated by personal vendetta because Muniyappa had earlier reported the misuse of school children for cleaning water and sewerage tanks.

The complaint contained corrections, indicating that it was fabricated to malign Muniyappa.

Respondents (State of Karnataka and the Joint Director, Social Welfare Department):

Muniyappa's actions constituted a clear offense under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

The evidence, including videos and photographs on the seized mobile phones, confirmed the allegations.

The Petitioner-Muniyappa was not cooperating with the investigation, as he refused to unlock one of his mobile phones, which likely contained incriminating evidence.

Muniyappa recorded inappropriate videos and took photographs of the girls, which was substantiated by evidence from his mobile devices.

Court's Observation

The court noted the procedural concerns raised by Muniyappa but emphasized the seriousness of the allegations under the POCSO Act and the need for a thorough investigation to determine the truth.

It examined the sequence of events, including the timing of the complaint, the seizure of the mobile phones, and the registration of the FIR. The court considered the arguments regarding the tampering of the complaint and the handling of electronic evidence.

The court was cautious in considering the petitioner's argument about the complaint being fabricated, given the sensitive nature of the allegations inv