Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR alleging sexual assault by a father on his minor daughter, after a CBI investigation directed by the Court itself found the child's allegations unreliable, uncorroborated, and inconsistent with CCTV evidence and psychiatric evaluation. The Court held that continuing the prosecution on such material would amount to a gross abuse of process, and restored legal custody of the child to the father, who had been granted custody through prior proceedings culminating before this Court in 2023.

Opening the judgment, the Bench observed that when parental acrimony escalates to the level of falsely attributing sexual assault to one parent, the harm inflicted extends beyond the child's trauma to a lasting injury on the parent-child bond itself, compounded by the humiliation the accused parent suffers even after exoneration. Recording this as part of a "growing menace", the Court proceeded to lay down structured safeguards to prevent such misuse of the POCSO Act in the specific context of ongoing matrimonial disputes.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “To be caught in the crossfire between warring parents would undoubtedly be a painful experience for any child. When the acrimony, however, is escalated to the level of unjustifiably attributing sexual assault of the child by one parent, the matter acquires a different dimension altogether. Quite apart from the trauma that the minor child is put through in the process, the accusation can damage the very fabric of the parentchild relationship and the resultant wound is bound to leave an indelible scar in the minds of both. This is independent of the hurt, humiliation and the public opprobrium the accused parent faces, even long after exoneration from the charges. What is alarming is that this tendency of making false accusations is on the rise. Instances are not infrequent where gullible parties are misguided by their advisors, including in some cases by recalcitrant legal professionals, who in their pursuit of the motto of ‘win at any cost’, end up fuelling the fire…”.

“…The only objective is to tie up the accused spouse and their family members in knots with the foisted criminal case and ensure that they are kept busy with the Court process for a considerable period. Very often, the enraged parent who is engulfed by anger and blinded by ego falls prey to these machinations, oblivious to the consequences that may ensue. Some of the above attributes are present in this case. We have, in this judgment, endeavoured not just to find a solution to the case at hand but have also ventured to lay down certain safeguards, to check this growing menace”, the Bench said.

Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar appeared for the appellant and A Velan, AOR appeared for the respondent.

The safeguards, as framed by the Court, apply only when two conditions are both met: (i) the POCSO allegation is against a parent or a family member living in the same household as the child, and (ii) a matrimonial dispute exists between the parents.

1. Before arrest (police-report cases): The investigating officer/SJPU must ordinarily arrange a psychiatric/psychological evaluation of the child by an expert empanelled with the District Child Protection Unit (or DLSA, where no DCPU exists), before deciding whether there is "reason to believe" the accused committed the offence under Section 35 BNSS. This can be dispensed with only in exceptional cases, for recorded reasons where the material is otherwise clear ("palpable").

2. Effect of the expert report: The report guides but does not bind the investigating officer, arrest remains a matter of discretion informed by the report and other material. It also cannot be the sole basis for a chargesheet or closure report.

3. Private complaints (Section 33, POCSO): The same principle applies to Special Courts deciding whether to take cognizance and issue summons, an expert evaluation should ordinarily precede that decision, again dispensable only for recorded reasons in clear cases.

4. Effect on custody/guardianship proceedings: Mere registration of a POCSO case must not automatically defeat a parent's custody claim. Courts must independently assess, on the material available (including investigation findings), whether the allegation appears genuine or is being used as a tactic, following the approach in Suhara v. Muhammed Jaleel, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1237.

5. Applicability: These directions apply to all investigations pending as of the judgment date, and to private complaints where summons have not yet been issued. Copies were directed to be sent to all High Courts and State police machinery for implementation, with DCPUs directed to maintain updated panels of qualified child psychiatry/psychology experts.

Pertinently, while referring to Suhara, addressing the risk of false allegations being weaponized to gain leverage in child custody battles, the Bench noted, “…If the complaint is made with mala fide intent, its purpose may be to gain an upper hand in those proceedings. In such cases, the concerned court should adopt the approach suggested by the Kerala High Court in Suhara (supra), to which we have already referred. To reiterate, the Kerala High Court held that: (i) the mere registration of a case under the POCSO Act should not by itself give rise to an inference that the allegation is true, and should not be allowed to become a ruse for defeating that parent's legitimate claim to custody or guardianship; and (ii) the court concerned, after considering the relevant material, including the material collected by the investigating agency, shall, on a case-to-case basis, form a prima facie view as to whether the allegations are baseless”.

For the facts, the dispute pertained to the marriage of 'R' and 'E' in 2011 and the birth of their daughter 'M' in 2015. Following marital discord, 'E' left the matrimonial home with the child in 2018, triggering guardianship, divorce and custody proceedings. Custody was eventually awarded to 'R' by the Family Court, upheld by the High Court of Karnataka, and confirmed by the Supreme Court in March 2023.

In March 2024, shortly after physical custody was transferred to the father, 'E' lodged an FIR alleging that 'R' and his family members had sexually assaulted and harassed the child, invoking Section 10 of the POCSO Act along with provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the IPC.

Given the sensitivity of the allegations, the Supreme Court in 2024 directed that investigation be handled by a Senior Woman Police Officer and that the child be examined by a medical panel. In April 2026, finding the matter required more rigorous scrutiny, the Court transferred the investigation to the CBI, directing constitution of a specialised committee including a child and adolescent psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist from NIMHANS.

The CBI's report, running through a detailed statement-credibility analysis and independent psychological evaluation, concluded that the child's disclosures were inconsistent, unsupported by CCTV footage of the relevant period, and lacked the trauma indicators typically consistent with the allegations made, attributing the child's statements possibly to prolonged parental conflict and repeated exposure to the ongoing litigation.

Accepting these findings, the Court held that the FIR could not be sustained and quashed it in entirety. The Bench further held that the child's best interests would be served by restoring her to the father's custody, and directed a Family Court-supervised reintegration process guided by the same expert committee that had assisted the CBI. The Court also quashed a related 2018 FIR filed by the father against the mother, closed a pending contempt petition, and disposed of connected criminal appeals.

“Upon receipt of the psychological/psychiatric evaluation report, the investigating authorities shall take the opinion of the expert into consideration, along with other relevant material and circumstances, to decide whether there is a “reason to believe” that the accused has committed the offence, for the purpose of effectuating his arrest…”, the Bench noted.

The Court clarified that such expert opinion would inform, but not bind, the investigating officer's discretion, and would similarly guide Special Courts deciding whether to take cognizance of private complaints under Section 33 of the POCSO Act. These directions were made applicable to all pending investigations and un-summoned complaints as of the date of judgment, with copies directed to be circulated to all High Courts and police stations nationally.

Cause Title: R v. E & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1049)

Appearances:

Appellant: Lakshmy Iyengar, Sr. Adv., Ankitha Shelke, N. Gowtham Raghunath, Skanda Rk Rao, Advocates.

Respondents: A Velan, AOR, Navpreet Kaur, Prince Singh, Nilay Rai, Rashik Hameed Mukilan M, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: