Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: N. Anand Venkatesh, J. while addressing a petition expressed disappointment in respect to the manner in which POCSO Act is being misused, as, in the present case, the wife went down to the extent where she has put up false allegation of sexual assault against her husband with their daughter who is aged 11 years old only with the motive to get custody of her daughters.

“One of those unfortunate cases, where the wife has resorted to giving a complaint against her husband alleging that he has committed sexual assault against their daughter.”

In the present case, the 2nd respondent gave a complaint to the respondent police stating that there is an illicit relationship between the petitioner – father of their daughter. She adds that, she was able to identify and see some bodily changes in her elder daughter and also she had become pregnant. Her pregnancy was terminated through native medicines.

Respondent police had registered an FIR for an offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Petitioner apprehended arrest and approached this Court by filing the Anticipatory Bail Petition. Court summoned the minor girl in order to enquire her in person. She completely denied the allegations made against the petitioner.

Observations made by the Court:

Court categorically found that the de facto complainant lodged a false complaint with an ulterior motive to threaten petitioner and thereby petitioner was granted anticipatory bail.

Present petition is aimed to quash the FIR which is itself an abuse of process of law and is being used to threaten the petitioner to wreck vengeance against the petitioner.

Court on summoning the victim girl noted that, she had narrated the entire incident clearly where it can be seen that the defacto complainant was attempting to take the daughters into her custody and for that purpose, she cooked up a false story against the petitioner. It was also added to the Court’s observation that, the victim girl had taken a very consistent stand both at the time of giving a statement under Section 164 CrPC and at the time when she was personally enquired by this Court.

This case has shocked the conscience of the Court and it is unbelievable that the mother just for the sake of taking custody of her child, can go to the extent of making such serious allegations against her husband.

Court while analysing the seriousness of the false allegation also stated that it is an eye-opener for the Court as now the Court is aware of the extent with which POCSO Act can be misused.

“2nd Respondent without caring for the future of her own daughter, proceeded to give a complaint alleging illicit relationship between her husband and daughter”—This is the worst type of false prosecution a Court can ever encounter.

Therefore, respondent police is directed to immediately proceed against 2nd respondent under Section 22 of the POCSO Act for having given a false complaint and accordingly action to be taken in accordance with the law.

This case should be a lesson for all those who attempt to misuse the provisions of this Act, just to satisfy their own selfish ends.

Thus Criminal Original Petition is accordingly allowed. [N. Chandramohan v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 3666, decided on 20-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: While deciding a  criminal revision petition, a Single Judge Bench held that it is not necessary that charges framed based on the statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 coincide with allegations made in the FIR for them to be valid.

The facts were that the petitioner was charged under Sections 376, 506 and 384 of the Penal Code, 1860 but the rape charges were not levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. It was only, in the later stage of recording of statement under Section 164 of the CrPC that the allegation surfaced. However, the allegation was not supported by date, time or exact place except a comment that it was committed around 8-10 years ago.

The main contention of the petitioner was that an anticipatory bail had already been granted to the petitioner observing the fact that the date, month or the year when the rape was committed has not been mentioned and no reason has been given as to why no police complaint was filed after the incident. The Court rejected this contention as irrelevant and inapplicable to the present issue. Further, the Court held that charges can be framed on the basis of strong suspicion as appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the court in the pre-trial stage.

The Court relied on the judgment of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, 1979 (3) SCC 4 to lay down that where the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused but no proper explanation has been given in relation to it, the court will be fully justified in framing such charges. Any decision as to guilt or innocence can only be passed upon conclusion of trial. Further, the petitioner failed to point out any error of law or error of jurisdiction and hence, the impugned order does not require any interference or modification. The petition was therefore dismissed. [Mohsin Khan v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9315, decided on 14.07.2017]