Supreme Court quashes POCSO case against aunt, warns against dragging in-laws into marital disputes

The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the trend of implicating in-laws in criminal cases arising from marital disputes, often using children as pawns to settle scores. The observation came as the court quashed a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case registered against a woman whose brother's divorced wife had accused her of sexually molesting her son.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran criticised the Bombay High Court for refusing to quash the case without examining the evidence on record. The Supreme Court noted that it has become common for in-laws to be dragged into such disputes, and children are frequently used to vilify each other.

'It is commonplace, nay customary that in-laws are dragged in to settle scores in cases arising out of marital discord and often children are used to vilify each other. But we are shocked by the allegations raised herein by the divorced mother that her son is constantly molested sexually by his paternal aunt,' the Bench observed in its July 23 order.

The court found that the First Information Report (FIR) was a counterblast to a similar FIR filed by the divorced father against the maternal uncle. The alleged incident was not raised during the divorce proceedings, which were by mutual consent in September 2023. The mother only filed the complaint in March 2024, just hours after the father lodged his FIR.

Advocate Sana Raees Khan, representing the appellant, argued that the prosecution was a 'classic abuse of the criminal justice process' aimed at settling personal scores in a custody battle. She highlighted that the allegations surfaced only after the father's FIR, indicating retaliation rather than a genuine complaint of child sexual abuse.

The Supreme Court noted that the statement of the alleged victim, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not support the mother's allegations. The division bench of the Bombay High Court had earlier stayed proceedings, observing that the complaint appeared baseless. However, a later bench refused to quash the case without reviewing the records.

The top court emphasised that the existence of rival FIRs does not absolve the court from independently scrutinising whether the allegations disclose a prima facie offence. In this case, the court found no reason to put the aunt through a trial. 'In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is absolutely no reason why the petitioner should be subjected to a trial,' the Bench said.

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR registered at Khadki Police Station in Pune district under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The court also noted that the mother did not appear despite service of notice.