POCSO Act | False 'Sexual Harassment' Allegation Won't Attract Prosecution Under Section 22: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that a prosecution for making a false complaint under Section 22 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is maintainable only if the alleged false information relates to offences under Sections 3 (penetrative sexual assault), 5 (Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault), 7 (Sexual Assault) or 9 (Aggravated Sexual Assault) of the Act.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was delivering judgment in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against two persons who were charged under Section 22 of the POCSO Act for allegedly lodging a false complaint.

The prosecution case is that on the basis of a false information furnished by the petitioners, a crime was registered against the accused therein and upon investigation it was revealed that no such offence was committed by the accused. Subsequently, the petitioners were arrayed as accused of committing offenses under Section 22 of the POCSO Act.

The Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners cannot be charged under Section 22 of POCSO, since the offence allegedly committed by the accused was under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

The Court thus examined Section 22(1) of the POCSO Act. According to the section 22(1), any person, who makes false complaint or provides false information against any person, in respect of an offence committed under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9, solely with the intention to humiliate, extort or threaten or defame him, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.

The Court noted that in the present case, the crime registered against the accused on the basis of the information furnished by the petitioners is only under Section 12(punishment for sexual harassment). The Court observed that this would not amount to offence punishable under Section 22 of the POCSO Act.

“Continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners will only be an abuse of the process of the Court and as such the same is liable to be quashed by invoking the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C” Court observed.

The Court thus allowed the criminal miscellaneous case.

Case No: Crl. M C 5884/ 2022

Case Title: XX v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 50

Counsel for Petitioner: R Rohith, Harishma P Thampi

Counsel for Respondents: Sajith Kumar V (SC-Lakshadweep Admin), R V Sreejith (SC_ UT. Admin of Lakshadweep)