False POCSO cases waste police, court time that can be devoted to genuine cases: Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently said that false cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 consume judicial and investigative resources that should otherwise be devoted to real cases. [Mikavel v. State]

Justice L Victoria Gowri made the observation while passing a common order in 4 criminal original petitions involving POCSO cases from Tiruchirappalli, Thoothukudi, Pudukkottai and Madurai.

"False POCSO cases, apart from harming the accused, consume enormous judicial time and investigative resources which ought to be devoted towards genuine child victims."

The Court quashed proceedings in 3 of the cases and ordered further inquiry in another. It found that the matters raised serious concerns about the alleged use of POCSO complaints by adults arising from family disputes, matrimonial disputes, personal vendetta and village factionalism.

It clarified at the outset that its observations should not be read as diluting the seriousness of genuine child sexual abuse prosecutions. Rather, it said that the exercise was intended to strengthen the credibility and effectiveness of the POCSO regime.

It added that when such a stringent law is invoked mechanically or irresponsibly, the ultimate casualty is often the child.

“...the true object of the POCSO Act is not confined merely to registration of FIRs, filing of charge sheets, or securing convictions...A child who enters the justice system should emerge protected, reassured, rehabilitated, and emotionally secure not burdened with deeper trauma inflicted through insensitive institutional processes," the Court said.

The Court said that child protection law cannot be allowed to become a tool in adult disputes.

“An instrument in the hands of warring adults to settle personal scores, familial rivalry and village factionalism.”

It added that such misuse could convert children into participants in fabricated allegations. The Court also said that it could not ignore cases where children themselves become casualties of adult hostility.

In the Tiruchirappalli case, the Court refused to quash the prosecution merely on the basis of compromise since the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. The case involved allegations against a doctor who was accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl whom he allegedly met through Instagram.

However, the Court found prima facie material suggesting possible coercion and manipulation by a woman lawyer who claimed to be the wife of the accused.

The Court noted that a counselling report recorded that the victim had stated that the complaint was drafted by the woman lawyer, that an advocate was arranged by her and that the complaint was lodged under threat and pressure. The victim also told counsellors that she had voice recordings relating to the woman lawyer’s conduct.

The Court further noted that police status reports disclosed multiple earlier criminal complaints involving similar allegations allegedly made by the woman lawyer against different persons. In several earlier proceedings, complainants had turned hostile, resulting in acquittals.

On this aspect, the Court said,

“The legal profession occupies a sacred constitutional position within the justice delivery system...If persons lacking genuine credentials infiltrate the legal profession and thereafter utilise legal knowledge to threaten, manipulate and exploit emotionally vulnerable citizens, the same would strike at the very root of public confidence in the justice delivery system.”

The Court, therefore, requested the Bar Council of Kerala to independently verify the genuineness of the woman lawyer’s enrolment records.

The Court also asked the State authorities to consider framing a State-wide sensitisation programme titled 'Singapen Sensitisation Workshop'. It said that the programme should focus on trauma-sensitive implementation of the POCSO Act, child psychology, responsible handling of child victims, ethical child interviewing techniques, prevention of misuse of POCSO provisions and awareness regarding Section 22 of the Act. The programme must involve police officers, prosecutors, child welfare authorities, counsellors, psychologists, education officers and other stakeholders involved in the POCSO framework, the Court said.

All the cases have now been posted for compliance on August 1.

In the Tiruchirappalli case, the petitioner was represented by Advocate T Seeni Syed Amma for M/s Roy and Roy Associates.

The victim was represented by Advocate Stevenson.

The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry was represented by Advocate KR Laxman.

In the Thoothukudi case, the petitioner was represented by Advocate P Selvakumar.

In the Pudukkottai case, the petitioner was represented by Advocate PM Vishnuvarthanan.

The de facto complainant was represented by Advocate S Babu.

In the Madurai case, the petitioners were represented by Advocate P Akarathi.

The de facto complainant was represented by Advocate M Balamurugan.

Senior Advocate Ananda Padmanabhan appeared for the woman lawyer in the Tiruchirappalli case with Advocate J Vishnu.

Senior Advocate B Saravanan appeared in case arising out of the Madurai complaint.

Government Advocates B Thanga Aravindh and M Sakthi Kumar appeared for the State in the matters.

[Read Judgment]