Karnataka HC Quashes POCSO FIR Against Father And Family, Citing No Specific Act Or Medical Link To Assault Amid Custody Dispute

The first petitioner, the complainant’s estranged husband and the child’s father, had obtained visitation rights in ongoing custody proceedings.

After the child returned from visitation on 16–17 May 2026, the complainant reported that the child was uncomfortable and took her to hospital.

On 18 May 2026, she lodged a complaint alleging sexual abuse and naming the father and his parents and sister; an FIR was registered under Sections 8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The doctors’ affidavits described redness, excoriation and a labial tear as non-specific findings, stated that they could not determine their cause, and clarified that no forensic examination had been conducted.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Sections 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act define sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault; Sections 8 and 10 prescribe their respective punishments.

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, proceedings may be quashed in the recognised categories where, among other things, the allegations do not disclose an offence or the proceedings are demonstrably motivated by an ulterior purpose.

The Court also relied on Ishwar Chand Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1004, and R v. E, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2002, for the need to scrutinise POCSO allegations arising amid matrimonial disputes, while neither presuming misuse nor diminishing the Act’s protective purpose; specific allegations and individual criminal responsibility remain necessary.

Section 22 of the POCSO Act separately provides for punishment for specified knowingly false complaints or information, subject to its statutory requirements.

The Court considered the complaint, the custody-litigation context and the doctors’ affidavits together.

It found that the complaint supplied no specific act constituting sexual assault, while the clinical findings were non-specific and neither established nor conclusively excluded assault.

The Court further noted the absence, in the material before it, of an account from the child and considered the timing of the complaint alongside the pending dispute over visitation.

As to the father’s relatives, the complaint attributed no distinct act or participation to them; their relationship to the father was insufficient to establish criminal culpability.

On the totality of these circumstances, the Court held that continuing the investigation would amount to abuse of process.

It observed that the petitioners could, if so advised, pursue proceedings under Section 22 of the POCSO Act, subject to that provision’s statutory requirements and independent consideration on the merits.