Madras High Court: Trial Courts Must Exercise Due Prudence; Direct Registration Of Case U/S 22 POCSO Act Against Adults Filing False Complaints
The Madras High Court remarked that, of late, the Court is witnessing the increasing trend of misuse of the provisions of the POCSO Act to settle personal or political scores.
Justice B. Pugalendhi, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
The Madras High Court has emphasized that the Trial Courts must exercise due prudence and direct registration of a case under Section 22 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) against adults filing false complaints.
The Madurai Bench emphasized thus in a Criminal Original Petition filed by an accused, seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act.
A Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi observed, “While Section 22(2) of the POCSO Act grants immunity to minors from prosecution for false complaints, such protection has, in certain cases, been exploited to lodge false and malicious allegations. Section 22(1), however, makes it punishable for adults to file false complaints, prescribing imprisonment up to six months or fine or both. … Trial Courts must, therefore, exercise due prudence and, wherever appropriate, direct registration of a case under Section 22 of the POCSO Act against adults found to have filed false complaints.”
The Bench remarked that, of late, the Court is witnessing the increasing trend of misuse of the provisions of the POCSO Act to settle personal or political scores and such misuse not only results in harassment of innocent individuals but also undermines the true object of the Act.
Advocate R. Anand appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, while Government Advocate A.S. Abul Kalaam Azad appeared on behalf of the Respondents. S. Deenadhayalan was appointed as the Amicus Curiae.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was arrayed as the first accused in a case for the offences under Sections 11(1), 11(4), 12, 16, and 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The wife of the Complainant was arrayed as the second accused. As per the prosecution case, the Complainant i.e., the victim’s father, was employed in Kerala and used to stay at his residence in Madurai for about twenty days every month. It was alleged that his wife, who had fallen into financial difficulty, sought the assistance of the Petitioner, during which the Petitioner started sending obscene WhatsApp messages to her and to her daughter, aged 16 years. Upon perusal of the mobile phone of the victim, the Complainant allegedly discovered these messages and lodged a complaint, which was registered under the POCSO Act.
The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the case was investigated and a final report was filed as “mistake of fact” before the jurisdictional Court. Subsequently, the Director General of Police (DGP), by proceedings, directed reopening and further investigation. Thereafter, a positive final report was filed, implicating the Petitioner and the wife of the Complainant. It was contended that the said further investigation was conducted without obtaining permission from the concerned Court and, therefore, is contrary to law. It was further contended that the alleged victim, in her statements, has not supported the version of the prosecution and has stated that it was her father, the Complainant, who had sexually abused her.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in the above regard, said, “Prima facie, the material available indicates the commission of offences under the POCSO Act. The petitioner’s contentions regarding linking of mobile devices and authorship of messages are matters for trial and cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 CrPC.”
The Court was of the view that though the victim appears to have given contradictory statements, such inconsistency, by itself, cannot form the basis for quashing criminal proceedings and offences under the POCSO Act are offences against society and may be established on the basis of other corroborative materials.
“In fact, the sequence of events does raise serious suspicion as to whether the father of the victim was implicated to protect the petitioner. … In the present case, the conduct of the original Investigating Officer, Annamayil, in filing a biased report as “mistake of fact” despite the existence of incriminating material, is highly condemnable. It is expected that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her are taken to their logical conclusion”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that it is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. It directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the Order and dispose of the case in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition and refused to quash the proceedings against the accused.
Cause Title- Sahirsha @ MS Sha v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:2589)
