'Afterthought': Karnataka High Court Quashes POCSO FIR Against Father, Notes Complaint Filed Days After Wife's Custody Plea Rejected
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused by his estranged wife of sexually assaulting their minor daughter, holding that the complaint was a “classic example of afterthought and for personal vengeance against the husband.” Justice H.P. Sandesh noted that the criminal complaint under the POCSO Act was filed only after the wife's application...
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused by his estranged wife of sexually assaulting their minor daughter, holding that the complaint was a “classic example of afterthought and for personal vengeance against the husband.”
Justice H.P. Sandesh noted that the criminal complaint under the POCSO Act was filed only after the wife's application seeking temporary injunction against a family court order granting interim custody to the father was rejected.
The High Court observed that neither the complaint filed by the mother nor the communication from NIMHANS disclosed that the child was subjected to molestation.
“The court has to take note of the contents of the complaint wherein there is no allegation that the child was subjected to molestation by the father. No doubt, the statement of victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C wherein a statement is made that father had taken her forcibly to the Chennai and subjected to such act. The same is not found in the contents of the complaint filed by the mother and that complaint was even dated 23.03.2017 and there is inconsistency in the contents of the complaint as well as the statement made before the Magistrate and child was also in the custody of the mother and it appears to be tutored,” the Court said.
It added, “Though it is stated that the treatment was taken from NIMHANS and alleged that doctor confirmed molestation and the same is not found in the letter dated 15.05.2017 issued by the NIMHANS and there is no any positive material to that effect. In the absence of any documentary proof to show that child was subjected for molestation, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.”
Perusing the materials on record, the High Court called the complaint an “afterthought”, which was filed for “personal vengeance against the husband.” Without any documentary proof to substantiate the allegations levelled by the wife, the continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of process, the Court said.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the husband for the offences punishable under Section 354A(1) of IPC and Sections 7 and 11(ii) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Omnibus allegations against in-laws
The High Court further quashed the dowry harassment proceedings against the petitioner's parents (the second and third accused), stating that the complainant had made an “omnibus statement” against all the accused and that there were no specific allegations regarding the commission of a dowry harassment offence against the parents-in-law.
“The specific allegation against them that both of them are instigating accused No.1. It is not the case of complainant that both of them are demanding money directly from CW1. When such being the case, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3 is concerned,” the Court observed.
However, the High Court did not quash the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 34, 506 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the husband.
Background
The parties were married in January 2008 and a daughter was born in March 2010. In June 2016, the wife left the matrimonial home. Later, the husband filed a guardianship petition, following which the Family Court granted him weekend interim custody of the daughter on October 21, 2016.
After this, the wife registered multiple criminal cases alleging kidnapping and attempt to murder, both of which ended in 'B' Summary reports filed by the police. On March 18, 2017, the Family Court rejected the wife's application seeking to restrain the husband from going to the child's school. On March 23, 2017, she lodged the present POCSO complaint alleging sexual assault.
Case: U VS STATE OF KARNATAA & ANOTHER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.220 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8868 OF 2017