POCSO Act Being Misused By Certain Persons To Wreak Vengeance Against Their Rivals: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the Court shall exercise its powers to quash false and frivolous litigations filed with ulterior motives at the threshold by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC or Section 528 of the BNSS.

“It is discernible that the PoCSO Act has been enacted by the legislature to protect children from sexual abuse of any mode with exhaustive penal provisions of very stringent nature. But now a days, the provisions of the PoCSO Act are being misused by certain group of persons to wreak vengeance and also to make a strong case against their rivals, so as to obtain ulterior motives therefrom. When the facts of the case are scanned, if the same reveals that the allegations are levelled with ulterior motives and the same are not digestible to prudence, the courts shall exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the false and frivolous litigations at the threshold.”

In the facts of the case, the husband has been accused by the complainant-wife of committing penetrative sexual assault upon her, when she was a minor before their marriage. The accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 354D, 450 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 read with 5(1) of the POCSO Act. He has approached the Court to quash the final report and proceedings.

It was alleged that the petitioner and the complainant got legally married in 2017, but they had been in a love relationship since 2015 when the complainant was still a minor. It was alleged that the petitioner subjected the complainant to repeated sexual intercourse when she was a minor and committed offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant and petitioner got legally married in 2017 and there was no sexual intercourse before marriage, as alleged. It was further stated that the complainant initially filed a case for denial of maintenance before the police station and there were no allegations of sexual molestation during the juvenility. It was argued that the complainant filed the false case following a difference of opinion in their marriage, with an intent to wreak vengeance against the petitioner by misusing the provisions of the POCSO Act.

The Court noted that there was no sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the FIR alleging sexual molestation that allegedly took place in 2015. It noted that the FIR was registered only in 2020, whereas the parties got legally married in 2017.

Court stated, “Here, the wife of the petitioner is the defacto complainant and she lodged complaint after three years and one month regarding coitus between them in the year 2015 and 2016 when the marital relationship estranged and they become rivals. Prima facie, it appears that the entire allegations are raised with ulterior motives by the wife against the husband by misusing the provisions of the PoCSO Act and the penal provisions of IPC at a much belated stage after the marriage was solemnized.”

As such, the Court found that the allegations against the petitioner were prima facie unsustainable. It thus quashed the final report and all proceedings against the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates C.R.Reghunathan, R.Balakrishnan, B.Harrylal

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate K K Razia, Public Prosecutor M P Prasanth

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 1401 OF 2021

Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 775