In a hard-hitting ruling, the Supreme Court has held that the POCSO Act cannot be weaponised to arm-twist a spouse and prescribes mandatory engagement of child psychiatry experts before arrest or cognizance in POCSO cases involving family members where matrimonial disputes exist. The Court quashed the FIR registered against the father and three family members under Section 10 POCSO Act, Section 75 JJ Act, and Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, after a CBI investigation found the allegations false, untrustworthy, and not fit for prosecution.
The Court recorded its deep appreciation for the CBI’s meticulous investigation, which included forensic analysis of CCTV footage covering the entire period the child was in the father’s custody, examination of multiple witnesses, and a detailed integrated psychiatric and psychological evaluation by two NIMHANS experts, all of which revealed no signs of trauma consistent with the allegations.
Legal custody of the minor child ‘M’ has been directed to rest with the father, with the matter remitted to the Family Court, Bengaluru, for supervised re-integration under the guidance of a Committee of Experts drawn from the CBI and NIMHANS. The Court also laid down specific safeguards applicable only when a POCSO offence is alleged against a parent or family member living under the same roof as the child, and a matrimonial dispute exists between the parents, requiring the investigating officer or Special Court to engage an independent expert in child and adolescent psychiatry or clinical psychology before effecting arrest or taking cognizance.
The Court emphasised that mere registration of a POCSO case cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of the allegation or as a ground to defeat a parent’s legitimate claim to custody, and that courts dealing with remand and bail must examine whether the investigating officer complied with these safeguards before authorising coercive action.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice J.B. Pardiwala noted with grave concern the rising and alarming trend of false accusations of sexual offences against children being foisted by one parent against the other, often on the advice of ‘win at any cost’ legal professionals, to tie the accused spouse and family in protracted criminal litigation. The Court observed that such misuse of the POCSO Act causes irreparable harm to the accused, including prolonged incarceration, loss of reputation, social stigma, and adverse impact on parallel custody or guardianship proceedings, even before the truth is established.
The CBI’s investigation, which included forensic analysis of CCTV footage from the father’s residence covering the entire period the child was in his custody, examination of the child, family members, teachers, counsellors, housemaid, neighbours, and co-employees, and a detailed integrated psychiatric and psychological evaluation by two NIMHANS experts, revealed that the child’s testimony was unreliable and untrustworthy, with contradictory statements, absence of independent corroboration, CCTV footage suggesting a different sequence of events, and no signs of anxiety or trauma consistent with the allegations.
The experts also found that factors like prolonged parental conflict, ongoing custody litigation, repeated discussions of allegations, multiple psychological consultations, and continued exposure to family narratives may have influenced the child’s perceptions and narratives.
Also read ‘Fake’ UGC-CARE Journal Publication: Kerala Court Directs Probe Against College Chairman, HoD
Briefly, the dispute arises out of a bitter matrimonial battle between ‘R’ (husband) and ‘E’ (wife), who married in 2011 in a second marriage for both, and had a daughter ‘M’ born in 2015. Serious misunderstandings arose from 2017, and the wife left the matrimonial home on April 02, 2018, leading to a series of cross-criminal complaints and family court proceedings. The Family Court at Bengaluru granted custody of ‘M’ to the father on March 03, 2022, which was upheld by the Karnataka High Court on Jan 31, 2023, with structured visitation rights to the mother. The mother’s challenge to this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on March 29, 2023, and physical custody of the child was handed over to the father on June 07, 2023.
Subsequently, on March 28, 2024, the mother lodged an FIR at Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, alleging that the father and three family members had committed offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, Section 75 of the JJ Act, and Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the child. The Supreme Court, on April 07, 2026, transferred the investigation to the CBI, which constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a DIG-ranked officer, along with two child psychology experts from NIMHANS, Bengaluru. The CBI submitted its Final Report concluding that the allegations were not made out and the matter was not fit for prosecution.
