E. Krishnamoorthy v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.03.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl. O.P. No. 7774 of 2026 and Crl. M.P. No. 5529 of 2026 E. Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State rep., by its The Inspector of Police, W3, All Women Police Station, Vandalore, Chengalpattu District.

2.S. Saravankumar, The Child Welfare Chengalpattu District Child Protection Unit, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District.

... Respondents Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.0042 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, W3 Vandalore All Women Police Station, Vandalore, Chengalpattu District and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Shanmuga Sundaram for Mr. R. Muruga Bharathi For Respondents: Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 1/4

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.42 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent.

2. The petitioner / A2 in Crime No.42 of 2025 is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 87, 127(2), 351(2), 238 of BNS; Section 9(f), 10 and 21(1) of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The complaint has been filed accordingly.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Headmaster of the school. The allegation is that the Tamil teacher of the school misbehaved with a minor student and the same was informed to other teachers, following which a complaint was lodged. During the initial enquiry, the victim did not make any statement against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken into custody by the Child Welfare Committee and the Child Protection Officer.

3.1. According to the petitioner, in order to strengthen the case, the victim was compelled to make a statement implicating him and 2/4

consequently, he is now facing prosecution. The petitioner submits that he is only a witness to the occurrence and nothing more.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent produced the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On perusal of the statement, there seems to be some mention about the petitioner.

5. In view of the same, at this stage, this Court cannot look beyond the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

7. The 1st respondent police is directed to consider the petitioner's explanation and if found to be valid, appropriate steps may be taken. 27.03.2026 AT 3/4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

AT To 1.The Inspector of Police, W3, All Women Police Station, Vandalore, Chengalpattu District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Crl. O.P. No. 7774 of 2026 27.03.2026 4/4