Court imposes cost on petitioners for inappropriate conduct by counsel, emphasizing victim protection.
In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has dismissed a petition seeking to quash a final report under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, citing the grave nature of the allegations. The petitioners, led by Kottaisamy, had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 23715 of 2025, challenging the final report in Special SC No.205 of 2025, which implicated them under various sections of the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice L. Victoria Gowri presided over the case, wherein the petitioners, including the father of the victim, contended that they were falsely implicated. However, the court, after examining the materials and hearing arguments from both sides, determined that the allegations were serious enough to warrant continuation of the proceedings. The final report accused the petitioners of engaging in illicit activities with the victim, thus invoking Sections 7, 8, 16, 17, 9(n), 10, 11(1), and 12 of the POCSO Act, alongside IPC Sections 294(b) and 323.
Furthermore, the court strongly condemned the conduct of the petitioners' counsel for inappropriately naming the victim in the proceedings, a violation of the victim's privacy and dignity. As a consequence, a cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the petitioners, to be paid to the victim by demand draft by February 12, 2026. The court also directed the registry to anonymize the victim's name, ensuring it is replaced with 'XXXXX' in all court records.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the protections guaranteed under the POCSO Act and ensuring that victims are shielded from further trauma during legal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Petition seeking quashing of final report under POCSO Act dismissed due to seriousness of allegations and imposition of costs for inappropriate conduct by petitioners' counsel.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 7, 8, 16, 17, 9(n), 10, 11(1), 12; IPC Sections 294(b), 323.
Kottaisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (Madras)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2874975
