New Delhi: The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman under the POCSO Act on a complaint by her former sister-in-law alleging that she had sexually molested her minor nephew, holding that the complaint appeared to be a counterblast to an identical FIR filed by the child's father against the mother's brother a few hours earlier.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing an appeal filed by the paternal aunt of twins born from the marriage of her brother, who had since obtained a divorce by mutual consent. The children were in the custody of the father, with visitation rights to the mother's home.
“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. But we are shocked by the allegations raised herein by the divorced mother that her son is constantly molested sexually by his paternal aunt.”
The Court noted that the mother's FIR, lodged on 17.03.2024, came just hours after the father had lodged an equally serious FIR alleging an offence by the maternal uncle against the children's twin sister. The mother alleged that her son had complained of harassment even while she was in the matrimonial home and that she had witnessed one such incident, but no such allegation had been raised at the time of the divorce or at any point before the FIR was registered.
“The FIS, on a plain reading does not inspire confidence.”
The Court recorded that a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had earlier stayed the proceedings on an interim basis, finding prima facie that the complaint lacked substance, and had specifically noted that the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class did not support the mother's allegation of assault. However, at the final hearing, the High Court proceeded to hold that since cross-complaints had been raised, the appellant must face trial, without examining either the FIS or the Section 164 statement despite its attention being drawn to the earlier order.
Holding that the High Court ought to have examined the record, particularly when another Division Bench had already found the allegations prima facie unsustainable, the Supreme Court observed that the second respondent-mother had failed to enter appearance despite having been served.
“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.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed FIR No.100/2024 registered at Khadki Police Station, Pune, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and directed that no further proceedings be taken pursuant to it. The appeal was allowed.
Appearances: For the Petitioner: Ms. Sana Raees Khan, Advocate; Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, AOR. For the Respondents: Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Advocate; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Advocate.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (SLP(Crl.) No.2163 of 2025)
