Supreme Court Stays FIR Against Mother For Allegedly Making False Accusation Of Father Sexually Abusing 3-Year-Old Child

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N.K. Singh was informed that pursuant to observations made by the single judge of Kerala High Court, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, in para '16' of the impugned order, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner (wife) under Section 22 of the POCSO read with Section 117 of the Kerala Police Act.

In a case where the mother has alleged that the father sexually assaulted their 3-year-old child, the Kerala High Court has observed that a “frivolous complaint” has been filed by the mother with an ulterior motive to get custody of the child. Observing that in the 164 CrPC statement of the child-victim, she deposed against the mother, it stated: “Even the child aged 3 years who is tutored to depose against her own father deposed before the Magistrate that she likes her father more than her mother. This is a fit case in which the prosecution against the petitioner who is the father of the victim is to be quashed in the light of the above discussions.”

While quashing the prosecution against the father is liable to be quashed, in para. 16, the High Court observed: “I am of the considered opinion that the POCSO Courts which try cases like this in which an accusation of sexual abuse is made against the father of the minor child, especially when there is a custody dispute, the court should look into the facts again and again before deciding the cases. All cases will be decided by all courts with great caution. But these types of cases should be dealt with very seriously because if the allegations are correct, that is serious; but if the allegations are false, a man is crucified without any substance and he will be defamed in the society because of such allegations.”

"Therefore it is the duty of the court to see that there is no false allegation against parents especially when there is a dispute regarding the custody Moreover, Section 22 of the POCSO Act provides punishment for false complaint or false information. In appropriate cases, the court should inform the police for investigation, if a prima facie case under Section 22 of the POCSO Act is made out. This is a fit case in which the Investigating Officer in Crime No.668/2015 has to consider whether any offence under Section 22 of the POCSO Act is committed by the 2nd respondent.

Section 22 of the POCSO Act says that any person who makes false complaint or provides false information against any person in respect of an offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 solely with the intention to humiliate, extort, threaten or defame shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. This is a matter to be looked into by the investigating officer in this crime. All the POCSO Courts should take appropriate steps in this regard if it is found that there is any false complaint or false information submitted by the complainants. If the POCSO Court found after trial that there is substance in the case of the accused that it is a false accusation, the POCSO Court should direct the Police authorities to register a case under Section 22 of the POCSO Act and proceed in accordance with the law”, the High Court remarked.

Appearances: Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal and Advocate Lakshmeesh S. Kamath (AOR) for petitioners