'Allegations Are Unpardonable': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash POCSO FIR Against Teacher Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Student

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday [June 4] declined to quash a POCSO case against a school headmaster accused of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old student, observing that the allegations levelled against him are 'unpardonable'.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, hearing the quashing plea moved by the accused and asked him to seek discharge before the trial court. 

“…You are the headmaster. The student was around 15‑16 years…. Do you think this court would spare a headmaster who has touched the breasts of a 15‑year‑old child? … What kind of teacher are you?”, the court orally remarked on the alleged conduct of the teacher.

The case against the teacher, pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, for offences under Sections 75(1), 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 8, 9(f), 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act is currently at the stage of hearing before charges.

The petitioner had sought the quashing of the proceedings before the High Court, contending that the allegations arose out of disciplinary action taken against a student who had indulged in ragging, following which another student consumed poison. He claimed that he was transferred from the school, and that the FIR was lodged eight months later out of vengeance harboured against him.

When the matter was taken up, the petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sarala Gupta v. ED (2025), which, according to the counsel, mandates that investigating officers must collect all relevant documents and list both relied‑upon and not‑relied‑upon documents in the charge sheet. The petitioner submitted that 34 persons, including former students, had given statements to the police vouching for his character, but those statements were not included in the charge sheet.

However, the Court asked the counsel to raise the above issues before trial court either by way of an application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. (supply of documents) or Section 91 Cr.P.C. (summons to produce documents), and not under a Section 482 CrPC petition.

“Apply for discharge”, the court orally said while permitting the petitioner to withdraw his plea. 

Case Title: Hemanth GM v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Crl P 4849/2026