Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Woman, Says In-Laws Often Dragged Into Matrimonial Disputes

The Supreme Court has quashed a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case filed against a woman accused of sexually assaulting her five-year-old nephew, observing that criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes often involve attempts to implicate in-laws and use children against one another.

“It is commonplace, nay customary, that in-laws are dragged in to settle scores in cases arising out of marital discord and often children are used to vilify each other”, the Court observed.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the woman's appeal and quashed the FIR registered at Khadki Police Station, Pune, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Court directed that no further proceedings be initiated pursuant to the FIR, Live Law reports.

High Court faulted for ignoring key evidence

The apex court held that the Bombay High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR without examining the child's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and other material on record, especially when an earlier Division Bench had prima facie found the complaint to be without substance.

“It was also specifically noticed that the statement of the victim boy recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class indicates that no assault as stated by the de-facto complainant had been occasioned…The Division Bench which considered the matter ideally, ought to have looked into the records, especially when another Division Bench, though in an interim order, noticed that prima facie the allegations cannot stand. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is absolutely no reason why the petitioner should be subjected to a trial and the 2nd respondent – the mother, has also not entered appearance despite service having been effected”, the Court observed.

The Supreme Court said the High Court should have considered the available material instead of directing the appellant to face trial.

Cross FIRs stemmed from family dispute

The appellant is the paternal aunt of five-year-old twins whose parents obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent on Sept 5, 2023. Custody of the children was granted to the father, while the mother received visitation rights.

The mother alleged that while she was living in her matrimonial home, her son had repeatedly told her that his paternal aunt had pulled his hand onto her breast while sleeping. She also claimed to have witnessed one such incident and said her husband took no action despite being informed.

However, the complaint was lodged on March 17, 2024, only hours after the children's father filed an FIR accusing the children's maternal uncle of sexually assaulting the couple's daughter during her visit to her mother's house. According to that complaint, the girl alleged that her maternal uncle had touched her private parts, following which she was taken to Jahangir Hospital for a medical examination.

The Bombay High Court had observed that both FIRs appeared to be counter-complaints arising from the estranged relationship between the husband and wife.

Delay and child's statement weighed with Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that although the mother claimed she had known about the alleged abuse while residing in the matrimonial home and had even witnessed an incident, she did not raise the allegations during the divorce proceedings or at any point before filing the FIR. The Court observed that the first information statement did not inspire confidence.

It also referred to an interim order of another Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which had stayed the proceedings after prima facie finding that the complaint lacked substance. That Bench had specifically noted that the boy's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class indicated that no assault, as alleged by the complainant, had taken place.

Although the High Court later dismissed the quashing petition on the ground that it could not conduct a mini trial, the Supreme Court disagreed, observing that the High Court failed to consider the material showing that the child had not made the allegations before the Magistrate.

Holding that there was no justification to subject the appellant to a criminal trial, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR. Advocates Sana Raees Khan and Dhawash represented the appellant.