SC voices concern over in-laws being dragged in criminal cases arising out of marital disputes

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has voiced concern over in-laws being dragged in to settle scores in cases arising out of marital discord and often children being used to vilify each other, as it quashed a POCSO case registered against an aunt of a minor, whose parents are locked in bitter matrimonial dispute.

A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran criticised the view taken by the Bombay High Court in refusing to quash the case without even examining the material on record.

"It is commonplace, nay customary that in-laws are dragged in to settle scores in cases arising out of marital discord and often children are used to vilify each other. But we are shocked by the allegations raised herein by the divorced mother that her son is constantly molested sexually by his paternal aunt," the bench observed in its order dated July 23.


It said the FIR is alleged to be a counterblast to an FIR lodged by the divorced father with an equally shocking allegation against the maternal uncle, here alleging the offence against the twin sister of the boy.

The top court, which perused the divorce decree dated September, 2023, passed by mutual consent, said the appellant is the paternal aunt of the twins born in the wedlock of her brother, who is now divorced.

The bench noted that the children are under the custody of the father with visitation rights to the mother's home and the allegation of mother was that the complaint of sexual harassment was raised by her son even while she was in the matrimonial home and she also spoke of having witnessed one such incident.

The top court observed that no such allegation was raised even at the time of divorce nor was a complaint raised at any time before the FIR filed on March 17, 2024, just a few hours after the father filed an identical FIR.

It said the FIR, on a plain reading does not inspire confidence.

Advocate Sana Raees Khan, appearing for the appellant argued that the prosecution was a classic abuse of the criminal justice process, initiated solely to settle personal scores in a bitter custody battle.

She submitted that the allegations surfaced only after the father had lodged an FIR against the maternal side of the family, exposing the complaint as a retaliatory counterblast born out of an embittered custody battle rather than a bona fide disclosure of child sexual abuse.

Khan further said that the allegations were inherently belated and contradicted by the statement of the alleged child victim recorded before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The existence of rival FIRs cannot dilute the court's obligation to independently scrutinise whether the allegations in a particular case disclose a prima facie offence, she told the bench.

The top court said in the order that the division bench of the high court initially stayed the proceedings, finding on a perusal of the records that prima facie the complaint lodged by the mother has no substance.

"It was also specifically noticed that the statement of the victim boy recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class indicates that no assault as stated by the de-facto complainant had been occasioned," the top court said.

It said the division bench of the high court which considered the matter ideally, ought to have looked into the records especially when another division bench; though in an interim order, noticed that prima facie the allegations cannot stand.

"In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is absolutely no reason why the petitioner should be subjected to a trial and the 2nd respondent - the mother, has also not entered appearance despite service having been effected," it said.

The top court quashed the FIR against the paternal aunt registered at Khadki Police Station of Pune district under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

"There shall be no further proceedings taken in pursuance of the FIR," it ordered.