False Rape Case | Sister Falsely Accuses Her Own Brother Of Raping Her Daughter: Allahabad High Court Directs Police To Register Criminal Case Against Her
Curated by NEWS DESK
Editorial DeskUTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has directed the Meerut Police to register an FIR against a woman for filing a false rape and POCSO case against her own brother, after her minor daughter's testimony contradicted the allegations.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order on October 28, 2026, while granting bail to the accused maternal uncle, who had been in jail in connection with the case.
The prosecution alleged that the accused had repeatedly raped his minor niece. Based on the woman's complaint, Meerut Police registered an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
However, during the trial, both the minor girl and her mother turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's allegations.
Read Also:- लैंगिक अपराधों से बालकों का संरक्षण अधिनियम, 2012 | POCSO Act in Hindi
The minor girl told the trial court that her maternal uncle had only scolded her for using a mobile phone. She admitted that this incident had led her to make false allegations of sexual assault against him.
The girl's mother also contradicted the original complaint. She admitted that she had lodged the rape FIR under pressure from a neighbour and that her daughter had never informed her about any sexual assault.
The complainant further claimed that the police had incorrectly recorded her statement during the investigation.
These contradictions became important during the Allahabad High Court bail hearing.
The accused's counsel argued that the minor girl's testimony clearly showed that his client had been falsely implicated in a serious rape and POCSO case. He also highlighted that the accused had already spent a considerable period in jail.
Read Also:- What is POCSO act and how is it interpreted by Indian Courts
The State opposed the bail application but could not dispute the relevant facts recorded during the trial court proceedings.
After examining the statements of both witnesses, the Allahabad High Court observed:
"From a perusal of the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, it is clear that P.W.-2 (first informant) has lodged a false case against the applicant, and this fact has been admitted by her in her statement before the trial court. Therefore, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, is directed to register an F.I.R. against P.W.-2 (first informant) for lodging a false case against the applicant, as per Section 22 of the POCSO Act,"
The High Court found that the statements of the minor girl and her mother indicated that the accused had been falsely implicated in the criminal case.
Taking serious note of the complainant's admission, the Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, to register an FIR against the woman under Section 22 of the POCSO Act, which punishes certain false complaints or false information made with malicious intent.
Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused maternal uncle and ordered the registration of an FIR against the woman for lodging a false POCSO complaint.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS
| Law / Section | What It Means | Application In This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 64(2)(m) BNS | Provides punishment for rape committed repeatedly on the same woman. | One of the serious charges registered against the accused. |
| Section 351(3) BNS | Punishes criminal intimidation involving threats of death, grievous hurt or other specified serious harm. | Included in the criminal case against the accused. |
| Section 5(l) POCSO Act | Covers aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed more than once or repeatedly. | The accused faced allegations of repeated sexual assault. |
| Section 6 POCSO Act | Prescribes punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. | Invoked alongside Section 5(l). |
| Section 22 POCSO Act | Provides punishment for certain false complaints or false information made with specified malicious intentions. | High Court directed registration of an FIR against the complainant under this provision. |
| Section 180 BNSS | Deals with police examination of witnesses during investigation. | The mother alleged that police incorrectly recorded her statement. |
| Section 183 BNSS | Governs recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate. | The girl's earlier statement supported the prosecution case, but she later contradicted it during trial. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Vivek @ Kannu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Judgment Date | October 28, 2026 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:AHC:224119 |
| Bench | Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal |
| Case Number | Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35086 of 2026 |
| Counsel for Applicant | Advocate Syed Shahnawaz Shah |
| Counsel for State | Additional Government Advocate Bhupendra Pal Singh |
| Police Station | Transport Nagar, Meerut |
| FIR / Crime Number | Case Crime No. 99 of 2026 |
| Final Decision | Bail granted to the accused; FIR directed against the first informant under Section 22 of the POCSO Act |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- False Rape & POCSO Case: Woman falsely accused her own brother of repeatedly raping her minor daughter.
- Minor Exposed False Allegations: Girl admitted that her uncle had only scolded her over mobile phone use.
- Mother Admitted False Complaint: The woman told the court she lodged the rape FIR under a neighbour's pressure.
- FIR Against Complainant: Allahabad High Court ordered an FIR against the woman under Section 22 of the POCSO Act.
- False Cases Against Men: The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused man and ordered action against the complainant, highlighting the need to hold those filing false rape cases accountable.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are moderated before publication.