New Delhi: The Supreme Court, taking judicial notice of a rising trend of parents levelling unsubstantiated allegations of child sexual abuse against each other to gain an advantage in custody litigation, has quashed a POCSO FIR filed by a mother against the father after a CBI probe found the allegations unreliable, restored custody of the child to the father, and laid down safeguards to be followed by police and courts before coercive action is taken in such cases.
Justice K.V. Viswanathan, delivering the judgment for the Bench also comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala, was hearing a batch of connected appeals arising out of a prolonged custody and matrimonial dispute between a father, 'R', and mother, 'E', whose child 'M' was born in 2015. The Family Court, Bengaluru had in March 2022 granted custody of the child to the father, a decision upheld by the Karnataka High Court in January 2023 and by this Court in March 2023 while dismissing the mother's special leave petition. Custody was accordingly handed over to the father in June 2023.
While the father's appeal against subsequent visitation modifications was pending before this Court, the mother lodged an FIR in March 2024 alleging that the father and his family members had sexually abused the child, invoking Section 10 of the POCSO Act, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act and provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the Court in April 2026 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the probe through a specially constituted committee, including experts in child and adolescent psychiatry and clinical psychology from NIMHANS.
The CBI's report, after examining the child's statements, CCTV footage, medical and psychological evaluations and the surrounding circumstances, concluded that the allegations were not reliable or trustworthy, noting contradictions in testimony, the absence of independent corroboration, and that factors such as prolonged parental conflict and repeated exposure to the family's narrative may have influenced the child's statements. On this basis, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would amount to a gross abuse of process and quashed the FIR.
Opening its judgment with an observation on the gravity of such cases, the Court stated: “When the acrimony...is escalated to the level of unjustifiably attributing sexual assault of the child by one parent, the matter acquires a different dimension altogether.”
Applying the settled principle that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody matters, and finding that the CBI's findings only reinforced the correctness of the custody already granted to the father, the Court directed that legal custody of the child continue to rest with the father, while remitting the process of physical reintegration, given its sensitivity, to the Family Court, Bengaluru, to be guided by a committee comprising CBI officers and the NIMHANS experts who had assisted the investigation.
The Court also laid down safeguards to prevent misuse of the POCSO Act in matrimonial disputes, holding that where an offence under the Act is alleged against a parent or a family member residing with the child, and a matrimonial dispute exists between the parents, investigating officers should not act in haste and should ordinarily engage the services of a child and adolescent psychiatry or clinical psychology expert, drawn from the District Child Protection Unit's register under the POCSO Rules, 2020, to aid the investigation before deciding whether coercive action such as arrest is warranted. It clarified that the mere registration of a POCSO case should not by itself be treated as proof of the allegation nor be allowed to defeat a parent's legitimate claim to custody or guardianship, and that courts examining bail or remand in such cases should also assess whether investigating officers complied with these safeguards.
In the connected criminal appeals arising from an earlier FIR of 2018 against the mother and another, and consequential proceedings for further investigation directed by the High Court, the Court, noting that the child's best interest had already been secured through the principal order, directed that no further action need be taken and quashed that FIR and all proceedings arising from it. A fresh guardianship petition filed by the mother, founded on the now-quashed 2024 FIR, was held to stand terminated, and a related contempt petition filed by the father was closed as having become infructuous.
The Court directed that copies of the judgment, with particular attention to the paragraphs laying down the safeguards, be transmitted to the Registrars General of all High Courts for circulation to every criminal court, and to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories for onward transmission to every police station.
Case Title: 'R' vs. 'E' & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 13119 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 1092 of 2024) with connected Criminal Appeals and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 208 of 2024
