Case Note & Summary
The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court of Karnataka seeking quashing of FIR No. 533/2024 and the consequent charge sheet in Special Case No. 2050/2024 pending before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The petitioner, a 52‑year‑old married woman and an artist resident in a villa community, was accused by the complainant, her neighbour, of sexually abusing the complainant’s son, then aged about 13 years and 10 months, between February and June 2020. The complainant’s family had lived in an adjacent villa since 2020; the petitioner gave art lessons to children in the community, and the boy frequently visited her home. In August 2020, the family shifted to Dubai and returned to India after four years. Shortly after arriving, the complainant lodged a police complaint alleging that the petitioner had repeatedly called the boy to her house, undressed herself and him, and made him commit intercourse on her, after which she threatened him not to reveal the incidents. The complainant claimed that the boy exhibited psychological changes during the stay in Dubai, and upon confrontation, disclosed the abuse. The police registered the crime and after investigation filed a charge sheet; the trial court took cognizance on 29 October 2024. The petitioner immediately moved the High Court. An interim stay of trial was granted. The matter was heard at length and reserved for orders on 1 July 2025, and pronounced on 18 August 2025. The core legal issues raised were whether a female can be an accused under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, which use the pronoun ‘he’ to describe the perpetrator, and whether the allegations, given the age gap, passage of time, and alleged physiological impossibility, warranted quashing. The petitioner argued that the word ‘he’ in the sections denotes only a male, that a woman cannot legally rape a man, and that the complaint was belated and improbable. The complainant and the State countered that Section 3 of the Act uses the word ‘person’ and that Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code defines ‘he’ to include both male and female; they emphasized the reverse burden of proof under the Act and the delayed disclosure common in male child abuse cases. The court heard detailed submissions but the operative part of the order was not reproduced in the available excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 can be invoked against a female accused; Whether a female can be said to commit penetrative sexual assault as defined under the Act; Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed for improbability due to age gap and delay.
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (08) 18
Criminal Petition No. 12777 of 2024
Hashmath Pasha (Senior Advocate) with Kariappa N.A. for petitioner, B.N. Jagadeesha (Addl.SPP) for State, Ashok G.V. with Monika H.B. for respondent No. 2
State of Karnataka and Smt. Divya Nediyedath Bipin
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR and charge sheet in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner, the sole accused, sought quashing of the FIR in Crime No. 533/2024 of HAL Police Station and the charge sheet in Special C.C. No. 2050/2024 pending before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the allegations were highly improbable, the complaint was lodged belatedly after a four‑year gap, and that Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act cannot apply to a female as the provisions use the pronoun ‘he’, making the proceedings an abuse of process.
Previous Decisions
The trial court took cognizance of the offence on 29‑10‑2024 and issued summons to the petitioner. This High Court granted an interim stay of further trial proceedings.
Issues
Whether Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which use the word ‘he’ to describe the perpetrator, can be invoked against a female accused.
Whether the word ‘he’ in the Act should be interpreted, with reference to Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code, to include any person irrespective of gender.
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground of improbability of the alleged act and inordinate delay in filing the complaint.
Whether the reverse burden of proof under the POCSO Act precludes quashing of proceedings at the threshold.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The complaint was lodged more than four years after the alleged incidents and only after the family returned from Dubai and sought legal advice; the delay is fatal and indicates fabrication. The allegations are improbable because the accused was a 48‑year‑old woman and the victim a 13‑year‑old boy; a woman cannot force a male to perform intercourse without his volition; in a state of shock, erection is impossible making sexual intercourse impossible. Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act use the pronoun ‘he’ and define penetrative sexual assault by a man penetrating his penis; a woman cannot be an offender under these sections. Even Section 375 of the IPC defines rape as an act by a man. Therefore, where conviction is impossible, proceedings must be quashed.
Respondent/Complainant: Delay in reporting sexual abuse of a male child is common due to psychological trauma and suppressed courage; the victim’s delayed disclosure is supported by studies and the Bombay High Court judgment in Bhiku Tukaram Jadhav. The POCSO Act is gender‑neutral in its object; Section 3 uses the word ‘person’, and Section 8 of the IPC provides that the pronoun ‘he’ includes both male and female. Hence a woman can be prosecuted. The Act imposes a reverse burden on the accused, who must prove innocence; quashing would bury the truth. The complaint and the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. contain vivid details, and the matter must go to trial.
State: Supported the complainant’s arguments and drew attention to the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate.
Judgment Excerpts
a woman cannot rape a man. A woman cannot make a man to commit intercourse on her, unless the man determines to commit intercourse
Sections 4 and 6 of the Act define penetrative sexual assault. Both the sections and also ingredients refer to the word “he”. Therefore, the sections would apply only when a man penetrates his penis into the vagina and not the other way round, as woman cannot do such act.
the Act raises a presumption against the accused. It is in fact a reverse presumption where the accused will have to prove innocence and not the prosecution proving the accused as guilty.
Procedural History
The 2nd respondent/complainant filed a complaint upon returning from Dubai, leading to registration of FIR in Crime No. 533/2024 at HAL Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The police investigated and filed a charge sheet. The Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, took cognizance on 29‑10‑2024 and issued summons. The petitioner immediately filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court, which granted an interim stay of further trial. The matter was heard at length and reserved for orders on 01‑07‑2025, and the order was pronounced on 18‑08‑2025.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: 3, 4, 6
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 8, 375
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 164, 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 528
