A Lady lawyer, her husband, and an accomplice allegedly filed fake POCSO and rape cases to extort money from men undergoing marital disputes. Police recovered cash, gold, forged IDs, and exposed their blackmail network.
Lady Lawyer Busted for Running Fake Cases: In a shocking case that has intensified the debate around misuse of POCSO and rape laws, Gurgaon Police have arrested a practicing advocate Geetika Chawla, her husband, and a balloon seller for allegedly running a blackmail racket that framed men in fake child sexual assault and rape cases during divorce and custody disputes.
The accused Advocate Geetika Chawla, her husband Harsh Kumar, and Hanuman, the balloon seller (who posed as the “victim’s relative” in the complaints) allegedly targeted men already going through marital conflict, and if they refused to pay settlement money, the trio would fabricate sexual abuse allegations and threaten them with arrest under POCSO, all for money.
Facts of the Case
The case unfolded in Gurgaon, where police were investigating a complaint of child sexual assault filed under the POCSO Act. The complaint was made by Hanuman, a balloon seller, alleging that a man had sexually assaulted a minor girl. At first glance, the case appeared serious POCSO cases generally involve immediate arrest, high social outrage, and strict legal procedures.
However, during the initial stages of investigation, police officials noticed that the sequence of events narrated in the complaint did not align with the minor’s behavior or statements. There were contradictions in:
- The location of the alleged incident
- The timing and timeline
- The relationship between the accused and the complainant
- This prompted a closer examination
- Suspicion Arises
During verification:
- Police found that Hanuman, the complainant, had no prior connection to the child or her family.
- He already had a past criminal record, including theft.
- The child’s testimony appeared rehearsed, not spontaneous, which raised further doubt.
Simultaneously, police analyzed digital communications and phone records associated with Hanuman.
This led them to the real masterminds behind the complaint:
- Advocate Geetika Chawla
- Her husband, Harsh Kumar
Police now suspected that the POCSO complaint was not genuine but strategically fabricated.
How the Racket Operated?
- Target Selection: The accused targeted men already going through divorce, child custody battles, or domestic dispute cases. Men in such situations are emotionally vulnerable, socially pressured, and afraid of jail or losing access to their children.
- Trust Building: These men approached Advocate Geetika for help during their divorce/maintenance proceedings, believing she would support them legally.
- Information Extraction: She would collect personal, financial, and case details — including salary, family background, and weaknesses.
- Collusion with Wife / Opposing Side: Instead of defending the man, she would secretly coordinate with his estranged wife or her family, turning the case against him.
- Settlement Demand: The husband would be told to pay a large monetary settlement to “resolve the dispute” quickly.
- Threat of POCSO: If the husband refused to pay — a fake child sexual assault or rape FIR would be filed, using balloon seller Hanuman as the complainant to distance the wife from direct involvement.
- Extortion Trigger: The man fearing instant arrest, jail, job loss, and public humiliation would feel coerced into paying under pressure.
- Money Recovery & Distribution: The gang would then split the settlement money advocate, husband, and Hanuman shared the extorted amount.
– This scheme had two advantages for the accused:
– POCSO cases ensure immediate police action thus, maximum pressure.
Using Hanuman as a proxy complainant made the case appear independent, not marital revenge.
How Police Cracked the Case?
During interrogation, police obtained:
- Call recordings
- WhatsApp chats
- Fake Aadhaar cards
- Forged identity documents
- Multiple SIM cards used to create false complainants
A search at the couple’s residence in Sector 72, Gurgaon, resulted in the recovery of:
- ₹1.1 crore cash
- Nearly ₹3 crore worth of gold and jewelry
- Dozens of mobile phones
- Fake identity papers
- Handwritten settlement notes
Legal Context: POCSO Misuse & Extortion in Matrimonial Disputes
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) was enacted to protect minors from sexual assault and exploitation. However, because POCSO:
- Allows instant arrest,
- Carries high social stigma,
- And trials are long and emotionally draining,
false POCSO allegations are increasingly being weaponized during: Divorce disputes, Custody battles, Property disagreements, Family settlement negotiations. This case highlights exactly that pattern.
Why POCSO Is Misused?
| Feature of the Law | How It Gets Misused |
| Immediate arrest provisions | Accused has no time to defend – Coerced into settlement |
| Strict evidentiary standards but public bias | Society assumes “accused = guilty” even when case is false |
| Case proceedings are in-camera (closed to public) | Lack of scrutiny – easier to manipulate narrative |
| Minor’s statement holds major weight | Statements can be coached or rehearsed |
Relevant Laws That Apply in This Case:
| Law / Section | Purpose | How It Applies Here |
| POCSO Act, 2012 | Protect minor victims of sexual assault | Misused to create false victim narratives for extortion |
| Section 376 IPC (Rape) | Criminalizes sexual assault | Used in FIR to increase pressure & fear of jail |
| Section 384 IPC (Extortion) | Punishes forcing a person to pay money using threats | Applies directly — men were forced to pay to avoid false POCSO cases |
| Section 420 IPC (Cheating & Fraud) | When deception is used for wrongful gain | Fake identity & emotional fraud to obtain money |
| Sections 467/468/471 IPC (Forgery, Forged Documents, Fake IDs) | Covers forged Aadhaar, fake SIMs, fabricated complaints | Police recovered forged identity proof in raid |
| Section 120B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy) | When multiple people plan and commit a crime jointly | Lawyer + husband + balloon seller formed a structured crime arrangement |
| Section 195A IPC (Threatening to fabricate evidence) | Penalizes forcing someone to give false testimony | Relevant if coaching child statements is proven |
| Section 211 IPC (False Charge of Offence) | Filing false case with intent to harm | Strongly applies if POCSO allegation is proven false |
| Section 182 IPC (False information to public servant) | Lying to police | FIRs were based on fabricated statements |
Key Judicial Precedents on Misuse:
| Case Name | Court’s Finding |
| Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (SC, 2020) | Courts must carefully scrutinize sexual assault allegations in disputes involving relationship breakdowns. |
| Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (SC, 2013) | False rape accusations destroy justice & must be punished strictly. |
| Instant Warning by Delhi HC (2022) | “False POCSO cases are rising in custody disputes, courts must be cautious.” |
Why This Case Matters for Legal Reform:
This case exposes a critical fault line in our justice system: laws framed to protect the vulnerable can also be weaponized to destroy the innocent. When POCSO is misused as revenge in marital disputes, innocent men face jail, career collapse, and social humiliation, while children’s statements can be coached, weakening the credibility of real child abuse survivors.
When lawyers themselves use legal knowledge for extortion, public trust in the legal system erodes, and when police are forced to act quickly in sensitive offences, truth is often overshadowed by public pressure and emotional outrage.
The core legal principle reinforced in this is: Protection laws are essential, but misuse of protection laws is also violence. A false POCSO case is not just an injustice to the accused, and it is a crime against every genuine child victim who needs the law to work.
Case Details
| Case | State of Haryana (Gurugram Police) vs. Geetika Chawla & Others |
| Police Station | Sector 65 Police Station, Gurugram, Haryana |
| Accused Persons | Advocate Geetika Chawla, Harsh Kumar (husband), Hanuman (alias Rohit), balloon vendor |
| Nature of Allegations | Fabrication of child sexual assault & rape cases to extort money from men undergoing marital disputes |
| Key Offences Invoked | POCSO Act, 2012; Section 376 IPC (Rape); Section 384 IPC (Extortion); Section 420 IPC (Cheating); Sections 467/468/471 IPC (Forgery, Fake Documents); Section 120B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy) |
| Modus Operandi Identified | Targeting men in divorce cases → demanding settlement → filing fake POCSO/Rape FIR if refused → threatening arrest & social ruin |
| Recovery During Search | ₹1.1 crore cash, ₹3 crore gold, forged Aadhaar cards, multiple SIM cards & mobile devices |
| Stage of Proceedings | Investigation ongoing; more victims expected to come forward; chargesheet yet to be filed |
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.