MP High Court quashes POCSO FIR against 66-year-old, finding prosecution manifestly mala fide amid property dispute and prior complaints

The petitioner, aged about 66 years, sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR dated 12 October 2025 registered as Crime No. 757/2025 at Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur, for offences under Sections 74, 75(1)(i), 75(1)(iv) and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 7, 8, 9(n), 10, 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The petitioner alleged that he had been falsely implicated by his daughter-in-law and granddaughter in the context of an existing family and property dispute.

Before registration of the FIR, he had published a notice disinheriting his son, lodged an NCR, and submitted complaints to the Superintendent of Police and Collector alleging threats of false implication in a sexual-offence case if he did not transfer his properties.

He subsequently executed a Will and Power of Attorney in favour of his daughters on 10 October 2025, while the FIR was registered two days later.

The alleged incidents were stated to have occurred between March 2024 and July 2025, with the FIR lodged on 12 October 2025.

The complainant opposed quashing, relying on the seriousness of the allegations, the explanation for delay, and alleged attempts by the petitioner and his associates to influence the victim after registration of the FIR.

The State submitted that the victim’s statements had been recorded and the charge-sheet had been filed, making the matter one for trial.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings where the FIR discloses cognizable offences under the BNS and POCSO Act.

2. Whether the prosecution was manifestly attended with mala fide intention and instituted as an ulterior-motive-driven counterblast to the petitioner’s family and property dispute, thereby falling within Category 7 of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

3. Whether the prior complaints alleging threatened false implication, the timing of the FIR, and the delay in reporting the alleged offences justified quashing at the threshold.

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, for the principle that quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold is exceptional, that a cognizable offence ordinarily warrants investigation or trial, and that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial.

It also applied State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly Category 7, under which proceedings may be quashed where they are manifestly attended with mala fides or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance or settle a private grudge.

The Court further recognised that delay in reporting sexual offences, especially offences involving a child, is not by itself fatal, but may acquire significance when combined with other circumstances indicating mala fide prosecution.

Although the FIR disclosed serious cognizable offences and the Court acknowledged the sensitivity required in POCSO matters, it found the chronology materially indicative of mala fides.

The petitioner’s complaints dated 8 October 2025 specifically alleged that he would be falsely implicated in a sexual-harassment case unless he transferred property, and these complaints preceded the FIR.

The publication disinheriting his son, execution of testamentary documents excluding his son and daughter-in-law, and registration of the FIR within two days formed a connected sequence supporting the petitioner’s counterblast theory.

The Court considered the substantial delay—over eighteen months from the first alleged incident and more than three months from the alleged incident of 1 July 2025—significant because it coincided with the property dispute and the petitioner’s prior complaints.

It also observed that the complainant’s subsequent complaints regarding alleged intimidation or influence could not neutralise the contemporaneous pre-FIR material bearing on the bona fides of the prosecution.

In the Court’s assessment, the absence of any earlier disclosure to family members, school authorities, relatives, or public authorities, viewed alongside the surrounding circumstances, rendered the prosecution manifestly tainted by mala fides.

The case therefore fell within Category 7 of Bhajan Lal, notwithstanding the general rule against evaluating disputed facts or conducting a mini-trial at the quashing stage.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was allowed, and FIR Crime No. 757/2025 registered at Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed insofar as it related to the petitioner.