Used Her Own Minor Daughter As Weapon: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹10K Costs On Woman for Filing Frivolous POCSO Case

The Petition before the High Court was filed against an order dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 358 of BNSS) seeking to summon the family members and relatives of the petitioner’s estranged husband as accused in a case registered under Section 21 of the POCSO Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga stated, “The matter becomes even more disturbing because the mother has chosen to use her own minor daughter as a weapon in this personal battle, thereby exploiting the child’s trauma for collateral purposes. Such conduct not only undermines the integrity and fairness of the proceedings but also trivialises the gravity of offences under the POCSO Act by reducing them to instruments of vengeance. The shield of child protection laws cannot be converted into a sword for vindictive prosecutions.”

Advocate Choudhary Ali Zia Kabir represented the Petitioner, while APP Priyanka Dalal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case pertains to an incident of child sexual assault, reported by the mother of the victim/a minor girl. She had fallen out with her husband, and there was cantankerous matrimonial acrimony ongoing between the two. She reported that the minor victim was allegedly subjected to sexual abuse by the victim’s father and her cousins. An FIR was registered at the instance of the mother of the victim under Sections 354/376DB IPC and Sections 6/10/12 of the POCSO Act. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and charges were framed against the accused persons i.e. the father of the victim under Sections 354/354A IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act; the victim’s cousin under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. Later, the mother of the victim was also charged under Section 21 of the POCSO Act on the allegation that she failed to report the offence in a timely manner.

An order was passed by the High Court setting aside the charge framed against the mother under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. Subsequently, the mother of the victim filed an application under Section 319 of the Cr.PC for summoning of other family members as aforesaid as accused, but the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed said application, imposing a cost of Rs 20,000 on the applicant/mother of the victim. The present petition thus came to be filed by the victim’s mother.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the arraignment of the grandmother and paternal aunts as accused appeared to an endeavour of the victim’s mother motivated by vengeance arising out of matrimonial acrimony with her husband. She had also gone to the extent of implicating the uninvolved grandmother and 3 paternal aunts.

The Bench explained that Section 319 of the CrPC requires that fresh, cogent evidence emerge during trial that indicates the role/complicity of other persons in the offence and provided the evidence so emerged is believable and acceptable. “Here, the child’s testimony about the grandmother and family members does not disclose new facts beyond what was already known at the time of filing/charge-sheeting. The allegations are general, vague, and not supported by any independent corroboration. Hence, the ―threshold‖ for summoning additional accused is not met”, it stated.

“Section 319 should be used sparingly, only where evidence is strong enough to indicate the possibility of conviction. Mere suspicion or statements containing generalised allegations are insufficient. In this case, PW-1’s statements about ―family suppression are inconsistent and cannot reasonably lead to conviction of the proposed accused”, it added.

As per the Bench, the victim’s testimony about the mobile phone and the involvement of family members was riddled with contradictions between examination-in-chief and cross-examination. “The application was filed not in the child’s interest but as an attempt by the mother to target her in-laws amid her own matrimonial acrimony. The Trial Court was correct in observing that the mother was ―arm-twisting and using the child’s testimony to settle personal disputes”, it noted.

The Bench also failed to find any independent proof that the grandmother or other family members had direct, actual knowledge of the alleged sexual assaults at the relevant time. “The attempt to array aged grandparents and paternal aunts, who appear to be entirely gullible and had no role in the alleged incidents, reflects a clear design to entangle innocent family members of the petitioner’s estranged husband in protracted criminal litigation”, the Bench held.

Thus, dismissing the Petition, the Bench imposed Rs 10,000 cost on the mother for making the State undergo needless and vexatious litigation driven out of vengeance on the part of the petitioner in sheer abuse of process of law.

Cause Title: Ms AM v. Government of State of Gnct of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8432)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Choudhary Ali Zia Kabir, Sija Nair Pal

Respondent: APP Priyanka Dalal, SI Pinki Rana

Click here to read/download Order