The investigation found the original POCSO allegation to be false, and police proceeded against the informants. The High Court held that the legal provision used by police did not apply to the nature of the allegation. Using inherent powers, the Court closed the case, showing that law, not emotion, decides criminal accountability.
False POCSO Allegation: The Kerala High Court at Ernakulam delivered a significant judgment clarifying how criminal law must be applied strictly and responsibly. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar examined a petition filed by accused persons seeking to quash criminal proceedings pending before the Special POCSO Court at Kavarathy, Lakshadweep.
The Court analysed whether the prosecution itself was legally sustainable and whether continuing the case would serve the ends of justice.
The case started when the petitioners gave certain information. That information led the police to register a criminal case against another person. However, when the police conducted a detailed investigation, they found that the alleged incident had not actually occurred and no offence was made out against the original accused. As a result, the police dropped the case against that person.
After closing the original case, the police then turned against the petitioners themselves and booked them as accused, alleging that the information they had given earlier was false.
On this basis, a new prosecution was initiated against the petitioners for allegedly giving false information, even though the original case itself had already been found to be baseless. This action led the petitioners to approach the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.
While examining the legality of this action, the High Court made its position very clear.
“On a perusal of the above provision, it is clear that, only if the information furnished is about the commission of an offence punishable under sections 3, 5, 7 or 9, of the above Act, the same will amount to an offence under Section 22 of the POCSO Act.”
Justice Kumar observed-
The Court further noted that even as per the prosecution’s own version, the original crime registered did not fall within the legal scope required to sustain the charge against the petitioners.
“In the instant case, even as per the prosecution case, the crime registered against the accused on the basis of the information furnished by the petitioners is only under Section 12 and as such even if the entire allegations leveled against the petitioners is believed as such, the same will not amount to an offence punishable under Section 22 of the POCSO Act.”
Justice Kumar categorically stated-
The High Court strongly cautioned against allowing such cases to continue without proper legal foundation. Emphasising the danger of misuse of the justice system, the Court held:
“Continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners will only be an abuse of the process of the Court.”
Based on these findings, the Court exercised its inherent powers to bring the matter to a close. The final order declared:
“All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.10/2022 on the file of the Sessions Court (Special Court for POCSO Act) Kavarathy, arising out of Crime No.41 of 2020 of Kavarathy police station, stands quashed.”
This judgment shows that even when a false POCSO complaint is detected during police investigation and action is taken against those who gave the false information, punishment can follow only if the law clearly permits it. In this case, the Court found that although the prosecution was initiated after the original allegation collapsed in investigation, the legal provision invoked did not actually apply to the nature of the complaint.
By quashing the proceedings, the Court made it clear that continuing such prosecution had no legal foundation and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The outcome quietly reflects how misuse may be identified at the investigation stage, yet final accountability depends strictly on statutory limits and the High Court’s inherent powers, not on outrage or assumptions.
Explanatory Table — Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose of the Law | How It Applied in This Case |
| Section 22, POCSO Act | Punishes a person who gives false information about certain serious POCSO offences with intent to humiliate, threaten, extort or defame. | Police charged petitioners under this section for allegedly giving false information. Court held this section was not legally applicable to the facts. |
| Sections 3, 5, 7, 9, POCSO Act | These sections define specific serious sexual offences under POCSO. Section 22 applies only if false information relates to these offences. | Court clarified that false complaint must relate to these sections for Section 22 to apply. The original case did not fall under these sections. |
| Section 12, POCSO Act | Deals with sexual harassment of a child. | The original crime registered by police was only under Section 12, not under Sections 3, 5, 7 or 9. Hence Section 22 could not be invoked. |
| Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) | Gives High Court inherent power to prevent abuse of court process and secure justice. | Court used this power to quash the entire criminal proceedings as continuation would be abuse of process. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Xxxxxxxx & Another Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Station House Officer, Kavaratti Police Station
- Case Number: CRL.MC No. 5884 of 2022, Arising out of SC No.10 of 2022, Crime No.41/2020, Kavaratti Police Station, Lakshadweep
- Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
- Bench: Honourable Mr. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar
- Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:5035
- Counsels
- For Petitioners: Sri R. Rohith, and Smt. Harishma P. Thampi
- For Respondents: Shri Sajith Kumar V., Standing Counsel, Lakshadweep Administration, Shri R.V. Sreejith, Standing Counsel, U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep, Senior Public Prosecutor: Sri A. Vipin Narayan
Key Takeaways
- Courts will stop criminal cases when the law itself does not allow punishment, even if allegations are assumed to be true.
- Police investigation may expose a false POCSO complaint and trigger action, but prosecution can survive only within strict legal limits.
- Serious laws like POCSO cannot be stretched to convert false narratives into sustained criminal pressure.
- Judicial scrutiny protects citizens from mechanically continued prosecutions once the legal foundation collapses.
- This judgment quietly shows that accountability flows from statute and evidence, not emotion, outrage, or narrative-driven assumptions.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.