High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Alleging POCSO Offenses Despite Assertions of Retaliatory Litigation

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash an FIR dated 29.10.2025 and subsequent trial court proceedings.

The complainant (Respondent No. 2) alleged that on 11.08.2025, while visiting the complainant's house to discuss their children’s friendship, the petitioner entered the minor daughter's room under the pretext of using the washroom and outraged her modesty.

The petitioner contended the FIR was a retaliatory "afterthought" filed 79 days after the alleged incident, noting that he had previously filed an FIR against the complainant’s son for rape and theft on 19.08.2025.

Charge-sheet was filed, and the trial court took cognizance on 13.01.2026 for offences under Sections 74 and 351(3) of the BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings (SCC POCSO No. 03/2026) are liable to be quashed on the grounds of being frivolous, retaliatory, and delayed.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 482 of the CrPC), regarding the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Sections 74 (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 351(3) (Criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act (Punishment for sexual assault).

The Court evaluated the petitioner's argument that the FIR was a malicious prosecution intended to force a compromise in a separate case involving the complainant's son.

the Court observed that the FIR contained serious allegations of inappropriate conduct towards a minor, which, if proven, would entail criminal liability.

Regarding the delay in reporting, the Court noted the State's argument that the victim only disclosed the incident after persistent questioning by her mother, and thus delay alone does not automatically discredit the allegations.

The Court determined that since the case involves conflicting factual allegations and counter-allegations between the parties, it is not appropriate to exercise inherent powers to quash the proceedings at this preliminary stage.

The Court held that given the nature of the allegations and counter-allegations, the matter must be decided by the trial court.

The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all objections at the appropriate stage before the trial court.