Madurai Bench Issues POCSO Compendium, Quashes Three Charge Sheets and Orders Probe into Alleged Fake Lawyer
Justice L. Victoria Gowri decided four POCSO quashing petitions together, directing trauma-sensitive reforms, a Bar Council enrolment inquiry, and vocational rehabilitation for victims.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a single compendium order pronounced on 1 June 2026, disposed of four criminal original petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the provision corresponding to the former Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — each seeking quashment of charge sheets filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Justice L. Victoria Gowri, sitting singly, allowed three of the four petitions and disposed of the fourth with directions for a preliminary police enquiry. Across all four matters, the bench identified a common pattern: children who entered the justice system under the POCSO Act were exposed to emotional strain, procedural insensitivity, and inadequate rehabilitation, rather than the protection the statute promises. The order also directed the Bar Council of Kerala to independently verify the enrolment credentials of a respondent whose documents were found to be prima facie suspect.
Why Four Cases Were Heard as One Compendium
The four petitions arose from different districts — Thoothukudi, Tiruchirappalli, Pudukkottai, and Madurai — and involved unrelated accused persons and victims. Despite the factual differences, the bench found a single disturbing thread running through all of them: children who came within the POCSO framework were subjected to repeated narration of allegations, multiple institutional interactions, social stigma, family conflict, and what the court described as systemic mechanicalness.
The court stated that the compendium was not intended to sensationalise instances of alleged false implication, but was conceived as a “larger child-welfare centred constitutional exercise” to provoke institutional introspection and policy reflection. The bench listed eleven recurring concerns across the cases, including absence of trauma-informed investigative approaches, mechanical registration and prosecution practices, insufficient understanding of child psychology, inadequate counselling, and structural gaps in rehabilitation frameworks.
The court was explicit that nothing in the compendium should be read as diluting the seriousness of genuine POCSO prosecutions. The exercise was framed as a measure to strengthen the credibility and effectiveness of the POCSO regime, not to weaken it.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3628 of 2026: Alleged Manipulation and Fake Lawyer Allegations
This petition was filed by Narendra Prasath, the sole accused in Crime No.16 of 2025 registered at the AWPS Fort Police Station, Tiruchirappalli, for offences under Section 366 IPC (corresponding to Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, an allopathic doctor, became acquainted with the minor victim through Instagram in August 2023, induced her by professing love and promising marriage, met her at Tiruchirappalli in October 2023, and subjected her to sexual assault. The final report was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2026 before the Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli.
During the pendency of the petition, a joint compromise petition was filed by the accused and the victim stating that the complaint was false. However, the case took a different turn when the counselling report placed before the court recorded that the victim stated the complaint was drafted by the sixth respondent, that she was threatened, that an advocate was arranged for her, and that the complaint was lodged under pressure.
The police enquiry directed by the court into the sixth respondent's enrolment before the Bar Council of Kerala revealed prima facie serious discrepancies in residential proof, Aadhaar particulars, identity documents, and address details furnished at the time of enrolment. The status report also disclosed that in several earlier criminal proceedings involving the de facto complainant, witnesses had turned hostile leading to acquittals, and that the petitioner had separately lodged complaints alleging cheating, intimidation, and extortion against the sixth respondent.
The bench declined to quash the charge sheet on the basis of compromise alone. The court held that POCSO offences stand on an entirely different footing from ordinary private disputes and cannot ordinarily be quashed merely because the parties have settled. At the same time, the court found that the materials disclosed prima facie circumstances of possible coercion and manipulation by the sixth respondent, warranting a focused enquiry under Section 22 of the POCSO Act, which deals with false complaints and false information.
The court directed the Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli District — suo motu impleaded as the seventh respondent — to conduct a preliminary enquiry through an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police within six weeks. All further proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2026 before the Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli were stayed pending completion of the enquiry. The Bar Council of Kerala was separately requested to independently verify the enrolment records of the sixth respondent and report compliance by 1 August 2026.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3924 of 2026: Prosecution Quashed, Rehabilitation Directed
This petition was filed by the accused Mikavel in connection with Crime No.25 of 2025 registered at the Thiruchendur AWPS Police Station, Thoothukudi District. The charge sheet was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2026 before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Thoothukudi.
The bench found that the investigating agency had mechanically filed the final report without properly addressing the impact of an exculpatory statement given by the victim herself. The Trial Court, in turn, had mechanically taken the charge sheet on file without considering the serious inconsistencies apparent on the face of the record. The court directed the victim to be produced and ordered counselling through Ms K. Mohana Priya, Regional Psychologist, Department of Child Welfare and Special Services, Madurai, and Ms P. Prema Latha, Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Madurai.
The counselling report painted what the bench described as a deeply disturbing picture, revealing that the victim had earlier undergone traumatic experiences and had previously lodged complaints. The court found that continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose, that the prosecution was riddled with serious infirmities, and that the victim had consistently ruled out the involvement of the petitioner during the later stages of the proceedings.
The bench allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2026. It directed the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, to conduct a preliminary enquiry regarding possible offences under Section 22 of the POCSO Act within six weeks. The first respondent was directed to take steps through the District Social Welfare Officer, Thoothukudi, to provide skill development training and facilitate sustainable vocational rehabilitation for the victim. Continuous counselling sessions through the Regional Psychologist, Thoothukudi, and the Clinical Psychologist attached to Thoothukudi Government Medical College Hospital were also directed.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3769 of 2026: Familial Abuse Allegations, Prosecution Quashed
This petition was filed by the accused Ibrahim in connection with Crime No.7 of 2025 registered at the AWPS Pudukottai Police Station, Pudukkottai District. The charge sheet was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2025 before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of POCSO Cases, Pudukkottai. The allegations pertained to aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5(n), 5(l), and 6 of the POCSO Act — offences involving a relative or person in a domestic relationship with the child.
The petitioner contended that the allegations arose from matrimonial discord and a property dispute, that he had entered India only on 28 August 2024 making allegations of prolonged abuse implausible, and that medical and laboratory evidence did not conclusively support the prosecution case. The de facto complainant and another material witness had filed affidavits stating that no allegation of sexual assault was originally made against the petitioner and that the prosecution narrative was developed during investigation.
The bench acknowledged that retraction by victims in sexual offences cannot be viewed simplistically and that courts must remain alive to the possibility of coercion, economic dependence, or emotional pressure. However, the court found that the very foundation of the prosecution was substantially shaken by the subsequent affidavits. It held that compelling the child to undergo trial despite the categorical stand of the mother and grandmother would result in secondary victimisation, and that the inevitable consequence of continuing the proceedings would be that witnesses would turn hostile before the Trial Court without advancing the cause of justice.
The petition was allowed and the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2025 were quashed.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21788 of 2025: Fourth Petition Allowed
This petition was filed by S. Muniyandi and C. Ayyapan in connection with Crime No.15 of 2023 registered at the Usilampatti All Women Police Station, Madurai District, for offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The charge sheet was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2024 before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Madurai. This petition was also allowed by the bench.
Singapen Sensitisation Workshops and Systemic Directions
Across the compendium, the bench issued a series of systemic directions aimed at reforming the manner in which POCSO cases are handled. The court directed the establishment of what it termed “Singapen Sensitisation Workshops” for stakeholders across the POCSO ecosystem, including police officers, prosecutors, Child Welfare Committees, psychologists, counsellors, medical professionals, and judicial officers.
The bench observed that the true object of the POCSO Act is not confined to registration of FIRs, filing of charge sheets, or securing convictions. The court stated that child protection jurisprudence must evolve beyond procedural ritualism into a genuinely welfare-oriented justice framework. It identified legislative silence regarding long-term emotional recovery and reintegration of children affected by criminal litigation as a gap requiring immediate policy attention.
The court also observed that while the POCSO Rules, 2020 provide for victim compensation under Rule 9, there remains an alarming absence of sustained rehabilitative mechanisms to restore the educational, vocational, and psychological stability of vulnerable victims.
The bench placed on record its appreciation for the services of Ms Mohana Priya, Regional Psychologist, Department of Child Welfare and Special Services, Madurai, and Ms P. Prema Latha, Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Madurai, who were appointed as child counsellors in these proceedings.
Outcome
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3924 of 2026 was allowed and the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2026, Thoothukudi, were quashed. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3769 of 2026 was allowed and the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2025, Pudukkottai, were quashed. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21788 of 2025 was allowed. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3628 of 2026 was disposed of with directions for a preliminary enquiry by the Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli, within six weeks, a stay on proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2026 before the Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, and a request to the Bar Council of Kerala to verify the enrolment records of the sixth respondent. All matters are listed for reporting compliance on 1 August 2026. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.