False FIR Against Father: Supreme Court Lays Down Safeguards To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Child Custody Cases

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has laid down important safeguards to prevent misuse of the POCSO Act in matrimonial and child custody disputes, while quashing a criminal case against a father after a detailed CBI investigation found the allegations unfit for prosecution.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was dealing with a long-running matrimonial and custody dispute between a father, referred to as ‘R’, and mother, referred to as ‘E’, concerning their minor daughter ‘M’.

The parties married in 2011, and their daughter was born in 2015. Serious matrimonial disputes later arose. In April 2018, the father filed a guardianship petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

In March 2022, the Family Court directed that the child's custody be handed over to the father. The Karnataka High Court upheld that decision in January 2023 while granting visitation rights to the mother. The Supreme Court later dismissed her challenge.

The child was eventually handed over to the father in June 2023. Thereafter, several proceedings, including criminal proceedings, were initiated against the father and his family members.

Read Also:- लैंगिक अपराधों से बालकों का संरक्षण अधिनियम, 2012 | POCSO Act in Hindi

In March 2024, the mother lodged FIR No. 76/2024 against the father and his family members. The FIR invoked Section 10 of the POCSO Act, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Sections 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, alleging sexual harassment and other offences against the child.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the background of the custody dispute, the Supreme Court ultimately transferred the investigation to the CBI. A committee consisting of senior CBI officers and experts from NIMHANS carried out a detailed investigation.

The investigation examined witnesses, medical material, the child’s psychological and psychiatric evaluation and CCTV footage, including footage relating to the dates on which the alleged incidents were stated to have occurred.

The CBI ultimately concluded:

“In conclusion, the investigation believes that the testimony of the victim does not appear reliable or trustworthy. The contradictory testimonies, the absence of independent corroborative proof, the CCTV footage that suggests a different series of events, as well as the psychiatric/psychological evaluation, are sufficient to raise doubt as to the reliability and trustworthiness of the allegations. While each individual aspect may be insufficient in itself to negate the allegations, but taken together in their entirety, the Committee finds that the allegations are not made out against the accused and the matter is not fit for prosecution.”

After examining the CBI report, the Supreme Court held that allowing the criminal case to continue would amount to a gross abuse of process. It consequently quashed the FIR against the father and three other family members.

The Court also took judicial notice of a disturbing trend in which criminal law can be used to gain a strategic advantage in matrimonial disputes. It referred to earlier judgments dealing with exaggerated or false criminal allegations between estranged spouses and the serious consequences suffered by accused persons and their families.

The Court stressed that genuine cases under the POCSO Act must receive full protection and proper investigation. At the same time, safeguards are necessary when serious allegations arise in the background of a bitter matrimonial or custody dispute, so an innocent parent is not subjected to irreversible damage merely because an accusation has been made.

The safeguards apply when two conditions exist: first, the alleged POCSO offence is against a parent or another family member living under the same roof as the child; and second, a matrimonial dispute exists between the child’s parents.

Read Also:- Madras High Court Quashes Father’s POCSO Conviction: Victim Was Tutored By Own Mother To Depose Falsely Amid Divorce

Where these conditions are satisfied, the Court said the investigating officer should not act hastily or arrest the accused immediately after registering the FIR. The police must comply with Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which requires the statutory conditions for arrest to be satisfied.

The Court further directed the investigating officer or Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) to ordinarily obtain assistance from an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry or clinical psychology. The expert evaluation is intended to assist the investigation and the decision on coercive action.

However, the Court made it clear that the investigating officer is not bound by the expert’s findings. The expert report cannot by itself become the sole basis for either a chargesheet or a closure report. The investigation must continue independently, as required by law.

Similar safeguards were laid down for private complaints under Section 33 of the POCSO Act. Before issuing process in cases satisfying the prescribed conditions, the Special Court must carefully examine whether sufficient grounds exist and ordinarily obtain expert assistance. The requirement can be dispensed with in exceptional cases for reasons recorded in writing.

The Supreme Court also dealt directly with the effect of a POCSO case on child custody and guardianship proceedings. It held that mere registration of a POCSO case against a parent cannot automatically mean that the allegation is true or defeat that parent’s legitimate custody claim. The concerned court must independently examine the material and form a prima facie view on the facts of each case.

The Court directed District Child Protection Units to update their registers under the POCSO Rules, 2020 to include experts in child and adolescent psychiatry and clinical psychology. Courts dealing with bail and remand in such cases must also examine whether statutory safeguards were followed before taking coercive action.

Read Also:- POCSO Act | Consensual Relationship Between Teenagers Cannot Be Criminalized: Rajasthan High Court

On the facts of the present case, the Supreme Court recorded that it was

“fully convinced that FIR No. 76/2024 dated 28.03.2024 was registered only for the purpose of laying a foundation to hand over the custody of the child back to Mother-‘E’.”

It further observed that after the CBI investigation found the case not fit to proceed, “the very basis for Mother-‘E’ to seek custody of ‘M’ stands shattered.”

The Court therefore quashed the POCSO FIR against the father, directed that the child’s legal custody would rest with the father, and sent the matter to the Family Court for a carefully supervised process of physical reintegration of the child with him.

Since the child had been residing with the mother for a considerable period, the Court directed the Family Court to supervise the reintegration process, with assistance from a committee of CBI officers and NIMHANS experts. The Family Court was also directed to make appropriate arrangements regarding the mother’s visitation after reintegration.

The Supreme Court also quashed the earlier FIR lodged by the father against the mother and closed the connected contempt proceedings, seeking to end the prolonged litigation in the child's larger interest.

The Supreme Court directed that the safeguards must be followed in pending FIR-based investigations covered by the judgment and in private complaints under Section 33 where summons had not already been issued. The Court also directed that copies of the judgment be circulated through all High Courts and to police stations across the country.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• POCSO FIR Against Father Quashed: A father fighting for his child’s custody was dragged into a serious POCSO case. Supreme Court quashed the FIR.
• CBI Found Allegations Unreliable: Contradictions, CCTV footage and expert findings raised serious doubts. Allegations cannot replace evidence.
• Custody Battle Turned Criminal: The Court recognised how serious allegations can be used to gain an upper hand in matrimonial disputes.
• Father Pays the Price: Even after exoneration, stigma, humiliation and damage to the father-child bond may remain.
• Supreme Court Sets Safeguards: A POCSO FIR should not mean automatic arrest or automatic defeat of a father’s custody claim.

Read Also:- Child Custody Legal Guide: Can School Remove Father’s Name From Records?