On Friday, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against a man and his family members, holding that the allegations lacked sufficient factual and evidentiary support. The Court expressed concern over the increasing tendency to invoke serious criminal provisions as a tool in matrimonial conflicts, warning that children are often drawn into such disputes and used as instruments in battles between estranged spouses.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a woman against her estranged husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, alleging that her minor daughter had been sexually assaulted by members of her paternal family. The couple had married in 2008 and had two children. Matrimonial discord surfaced a few years into the marriage, eventually leading to separation and a series of civil and criminal proceedings between the two families.
According to the complaint, the husband allegedly subjected the child to sexual abuse, while similar allegations were levelled against the child’s paternal uncle. The complaint also accused other family members of threatening and physically assaulting the child whenever she attempted to disclose the alleged incidents. Acting on these allegations, a Special POCSO Court took cognizance of the matter and summoned the accused persons to face trial. The Allahabad High Court subsequently refused to interfere, observing that the issues raised required examination during trial. Aggrieved by that decision, the accused approached the Apex Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings.
The Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the allegations of sexual assault were unsupported by specific factual details, noting that the complaint failed to disclose crucial particulars such as when the alleged incidents occurred or the circumstances surrounding them. The Bench observed that a mere allegation, without supporting material, could not justify prosecution for offences carrying severe criminal consequences.
The Court further found that by the time the complaint was lodged, the parties had already been involved in more than ten civil and criminal proceedings against one another, indicating a prolonged history of matrimonial hostility. The Bench emphasized that courts must exercise heightened caution when criminal allegations emerge amidst ongoing family disputes.
One of the factors that weighed heavily with the Court was the similarity between the complaint, the mother's statement and the child's statement. After comparing the three versions, the Bench found them to be almost identical and remarked that this was not merely a case of consistency but one of "verbatim reproduction of statements almost parrot-like." The Court observed that the child had remained with the complainant for a considerable period before her statement was recorded, providing sufficient opportunity for tutoring.
The Bench also attached significance to the complete absence of medical evidence supporting the allegations. It noted that despite claims of repeated sexual assault and allegations involving serious physical injury, no medical reports or treatment records had been produced. Referring to one particularly grave allegation, the Court observed that such an act would ordinarily require immediate medical attention, yet no corroborative medical material was placed on record. This absence of evidence, according to the Court, further weakened the prosecution's case.
The Court observed that children are increasingly becoming casualties of disputes between estranged spouses. It cautioned that allegations under provisions dealing with sexual offences must be carefully scrutinized at the threshold, particularly where parties have a history of bitter litigation and personal animosity. The Court also urged members of the legal profession to discourage frivolous criminal proceedings rather than using them as tools to gain advantage in matrimonial disputes.
Finding the allegations inherently improbable and unsupported by adequate material, the Apex Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed the complaint, the cognizance order and the summoning order passed against the husband and his family members. At the same time, the Bench clarified that its observations were confined to the facts of the present case and should not be construed as diminishing the seriousness of genuine cases involving sexual offences against women and children.
Picture Source :
