Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a child born in 2008 to the second respondent and his former wife. Following the parents' divorce, a settlement agreement granted custody of the child to the mother with visitation rights for the father, and stipulated that if one parent travelled, the child would stay with the non-travelling parent. When the mother travelled to the United States for studies between December 2018 and May 2019, the child remained with the father. Upon her return, the father refused to hand over the child and instead filed a guardianship petition seeking permanent custody. The mother moved an execution petition to enforce the settlement and also initiated other legal proceedings. In response, the father filed a private complaint on 4 June 2019, alleging that the petitioner (the mother's third husband) had committed sexual offences against the child under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The police investigation resulted in a charge sheet only against the child's maternal uncle, dropping the petitioner and the mother. The father’s protest petitions led to further investigation and eventually to an order by the Sessions Court on 24 January 2022 directing registration of a case against the petitioner under Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 509 IPC. The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of these proceedings, contending that the allegations were false and motivated by the father's desire to gain leverage in the custody dispute. The High Court examined the background of multiple litigations and found that the criminal complaint was a weapon used in the ongoing matrimonial battle. It noted that the statement of the child did not support the allegations of sexual intent and that the ingredients of the offences were not made out. The court held that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act does not arise automatically and requires foundational facts. Concluding that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of law, the High Court quashed the entire proceedings against the petitioner. The decision favored the accused.
Headnote
A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Presumption of Guilt - Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The court held that the presumption under Section 29 does not automatically apply; the foundational facts of an offence must first be established. Where allegations are made in the context of a matrimonial dispute and no sexual intent is discernible, the proceedings are liable to be quashed (Paras 15-17). B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court held that when criminal proceedings are initiated with an ulterior motive to settle personal scores arising out of a custody battle, and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out, it amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash such proceedings (Paras 15-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code are liable to be quashed in the context of a matrimonial custody battle between the parents of the child.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings in Special C.C.No.138/2022 and connected matters against the petitioner, finding no prima facie case and abuse of process of law.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act is not automatic and requires foundational facts to be established
- allegations arising from matrimonial and custody disputes without sexual intent do not constitute offences under POCSO Act
- inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash proceedings that are an abuse of process of law.
