Misuse Of POCSO Act Undermines Its Objective, Trial Courts Must Take Action Against Persons Filing False Complaints: Madras High Court

Justice B. Pugalendhi thus directed the trial courts to make sure that cases are registered under Section 22 of the POCSO Act against adults giving false complaints under the Act.

As per Section 22 of the Act, any person who makes a false complaint or provides false information in respect of offences under the Act with an intention to humiliate, extort, or threaten shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with a fine or both.

“Of late, this Court is witnessing the increasing trend of misuse of the provisions of the POCSO Act to settle personal or political scores. Such misuse not only results in harassment of innocent individuals but also undermines the true object of the Act. While Section 22(2) of the POCSO Act grants immunity to minors from prosecution for false complaints, such protection has, in certain cases, been exploited to lodge false and malicious allegations. Section 22(1), however, makes it punishable for adults to file false complaints, prescribing imprisonment up to six months or fine or both” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a man seeking to quash the POCSO case registered against him by the All Women Police Station, Madurai.

As per the prosecution, the petitioner had sent obscene messages to the de facto complainant's wife and daughter (16 year old) after the wife approached the petitioner for financial assistance. Based on the complaint, a case was registered for offences under Sections 11(1), 11(4), 12, 16, and 17 of the POCSO Act.

The petitioner argued that the case had been investigated and a final report was filed citing “mistake of fact”. However, the Director General of Police directed the reopening and further investigation, which resulted in filing of a positive final report.

The petitioner argued that the further investigation was conducted without obtaining permission from the concerned court and thus, was contrary to law. It was also argued that the minor victim had not supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner further pointed out that another complaint had been lodged by the victim's mother alleging that the de facto complainant (father) had committed sexual abuse on the victim. He thus argued that he had been falsely implicated and there was no conclusive evidence linking him to the case.

The court noted that, as per the forensic report, the obscene messages and voice notes were sent to the victim girl from the WhatsApp account of the petitioner, and despite this, the earlier final report was filed as a mistake of fact. The court observed that there was prima facie material, and any contention regarding the linking of mobile devices and authorship of messages was a matter to be adjudicated at the time of trial.

The court also noted that the Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court had refused to accept the final report as a “mistake of fact” and had directed the investigation. Thus, the court noted that the further investigation was judicially sanctioned.

The court further observed that though the victim had given contradictory statements, that by itself would not be a basis for quashing the criminal case, since POCSO offences are against society and must be established on the basis of other corroborative materials.

“Though the victim appears to have given contradictory statements, such inconsistency, by itself, cannot form the basis for quashing criminal proceedings. Offences under the POCSO Act are offences against society and may be established on the basis of other corroborative materials. In fact, the sequence of events does raise serious suspicion as to whether the father of the victim was implicated to protect the petitioner,” the court said.

The court also condemned the conduct of the investigating officer for filing a biased report as a “mistake of fact”. It directed that appropriate disciplinary action be taken against the officer and brought to its logical conclusion.

Thus, finding no materials to interfere, the court refused to quash the proceedings and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Anand

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A. S. Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. S. Deenadhayalan Amicus Curiae

Case Title: Sahirsha @ MS Sha v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 422

Case No: Crl.OP(MD)No.12044 of 2025