POCSO Act Often Misused To Settle Personal Scores, Even In Matrimonial Disputes False Accusations Made To Deny Custody To Father: Kerala HC

The Court said that the Act is misused in cases where there is rivalry in between somebody connected with minor(s). Even in matrimonial disputes, it said, minor children are used for alleging POCSO offences so the father of the child would not get custody.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed:

“Thus, chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be allowed to give vent to their frustration, by cheaply misusing the provisions of penal law. Therefore, the police officers and courts should always be vigilant, while addressing the allegations, so as to separate husk from the grist.”

The case was filed for quashing the final report and further proceedings before the Special Court for trial of PoCSO Act. The petitioner was accused of uttering obscene words and making a gesture with his tongue with sexual intent to the victim who was in the courtyard of her house. He was charged of reciting obscene words in public, insulting the modesty of a woman and sexual harassment of a child.

The Court held that the offence of uttering obscene words in public under Section 294(b) of the IPC would not stand as the place of occurrence is the courtyard of victim's house. It was not done in any public place or near any public place.

The Court said that as per prosecution allegation, the words uttered by the accused has one abusive word. However, the Court said that on examining the sentence, it cannot be said that it was done with a sexual intent or to outrage the modesty or intrude the privacy of the victim, which is punishable under Section 509 IPC.

On the allegation of showing sexual gestures with tongue, the court noted that the prosecution has not disclosed what the gesture is and said it is unable to examine whether it was done with a sexual intent or to outrage the modesty or intrude upon the privacy of the victim. Thus no offence was made out under Section 11(i) of the PoCSO Act.

The Court also observed that there is some rivalry between the accused and victim's father regarding some road works.

Thus, all further proceedings against petitioner in the concerned matter was quashed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Nirmal V. Nair, M. Aneesh

Counsel for Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George, Advocates Madhusoodanan K.S., M. M. Vinod Kumar, P. K. Rakesh Kumar, K. S. Mizver, M. J. Kirankumar

Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 71 of 2022

Case Title: XX v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 423