False POCSO cases being used as a weapon against husbands: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed concerns over a trend where false cases were being lodged against men by their estranged wives under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), as an arm-twisting tactic in matrimonial disputes..A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said that courts must be cautious of this growing trend.It made the observation while quashing a case filed against a man and his relatives, holding that the complaint appeared to be a tutored attempt to implicate them amid a long-running matrimonial case between a child's parents.The Court warned that children are increasingly being drawn into matrimonial battles and used against fathers and paternal relatives through allegations that are vague, unsupported by evidence and aimed at settling personal scores.“At the centre of this sort of litigation is a child who is often used by her mother against her father, against her will and wishes, so as to make false and vexatious complaints against her father and other male members of her paternal family in order to exact revenge or as an arm-twisting tactic to obtain a higher monetary settlement or to simply harass,” it said. .It further said courts must examine such allegations carefully at the threshold, particularly where criminal proceedings arise out of long-standing matrimonial disputes marked by multiple rounds of litigation between the parties.“The Courts have to be extremely careful before taking cognizance of complaints made while invoking the provisions of rape, especially in cases where parties have already been heavily embroiled in matrimonial litigation, since the scope of manipulation, fabrication and vexatious litigation is exponentially high due to pre-existing bad blood between the parties who are often emotionally charged against one another and allegations of rape becomes an aid towards arm twisting tactics” the Court noted. It also cautioned lawyers against advising clients to initiate frivolous proceedings as a pressure tactic in matrimonial cases and urged them instead to help prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system."Vexatious litigation in the realm of matrimonial disputes based on frivolous and false allegations should be discouraged by the courts and the members of the bar. Advocates ought to advise their clients against the initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings against their spouses rather than encouraging them to do so," it said. .Vexatious litigation in the realm of matrimonial disputes based on frivolous, false allegations should be discouraged by courts and members of the barSupreme Court.The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman against her estranged husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law alleging that her minor daughter had been sexually assaulted by them. The couple were married in 2008 and had two children, including a daughter who later became the prosecutrix in the POCSO case quashed yesterday by the top court.Matrimonial disputes arose between the couple in 2011, following which the wife and her sister left their matrimonial homes. The two children, however, continued to remain with the husband's family.The relationship between the families deteriorated over the years and resulted in a series of civil and criminal proceedings. The wife lodged cases relating to dowry harassment and domestic violence against the husband and his relatives, while criminal cases were also instituted against the wife and her family members. The husband, meanwhile, filed a divorce petition in 2022.The Supreme Court noted that by the time the POCSO complaint was filed, the parties had already been involved in more than ten civil and criminal cases against each other.In the POCSO complaint, the wife alleged that the husband, who was described as an alcoholic, made the child watch pornographic videos before sexually assaulting her. It was further alleged that after the child was sent to live with her paternal uncle and aunt in Meerut, the uncle also sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions.The wife further alleged that the child's grandmother and aunt physically assaulted and threatened her whenever she attempted to disclose the alleged abuse. One of the allegations was that the aunt inserted the handle of a hammer into the child's private parts. .Acting on the complaint, a Special POCSO Court took cognisance of the matter in February 2025 and later summoned the father and paternal uncle to face trial under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act. The grandmother and aunt were summoned for offences relating to causing hurt.The accused family members challenged the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court. However, the High Court refused to quash the case, holding that the statements recorded during the inquiry disclosed issues that ought to be examined during trial.Aggrieved by the High Court’s refusal to interfere, the accused family approached the Supreme Court..Examining the complaint and the material placed on record, the Supreme Court found that the allegations of rape against the father and uncle were unsupported by specific factual details.The Bench observed that the complaint did not disclose when the alleged incidents occurred or set out any particulars of the alleged acts.“A blanket statement stating that appellant Nos.1 and 4 had raped the prosecutrix, cannot, without any other supporting material, be considered sufficient to invoke such a grave and serious charge against them,” the Court said.The Bench stressed that while a complaint need not be an encyclopaedia, serious criminal allegations cannot be allowed to proceed solely on the basis of vague assertions.It further observed that the allegations had surfaced only after years of bitter litigation between the parties and after numerous criminal and civil cases had already been filed against each other..A significant factor that weighed with the Court was the similarity between the complaint filed by the mother and the statement later made by the child.After comparing the complaint, the mother’s statement and the child’s statement, the Bench said the three versions appeared almost identical.“This is not a case of there being consistency in all the statements but a case of verbatim reproduction of statements almost parrot-like, as a result of tutoring by the complainant and possibly her family,” it noted. The Court further noted that the child had been living with the wife for several months before her statement was recorded, providing what it described as a sufficient opportunity for tutoring and mentoring..The Bench also found the absence of any medical evidence to support the rape allegations significant, particularly in relation to allegations of repeated sexual assault and the allegation that the child’s aunt had inserted a hammer handle into her private parts.It observed that no medical records had been produced to substantiate the alleged injuries and that the prosecution had failed to explain the absence of any medical examination despite the seriousness of the allegations.“The act of insertion of a hammer rod is a very serious and critical act that can cause a very grave injury to the victim for which she might require immediate medical attention and treatment. However, the prosecution has failed to place on record any medical evidence in the form of a medical report to substantiate the said injury,” the Court noted.Holding that the allegations were inherently improbable and unsupported by sufficient material, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the complaint, the cognisance order and the summoning order against the husband and his family members. While doing so, the Bench clarified that its observations were confined to the facts of the present case and should not be understood as diluting the seriousness of genuine cases involving sexual offences against women and children..The husband and his family were represented by advocates LS Chaudhary, Ajay Chaudhary, Bharat Chaudhary, Vinita, Monika Chaudhary, Pratima Vishwakarma, Anjale Patel and Sanjeev Malhotra.The respondents were represented by advocates Vijendra Singh, Apurva Singh, Ashwin Lakra and Nitesh Ranjan..[Read Judgement]