Top
News Updates

'This Case Shocked The Conscience Of The Court':Madras HC Quashes False Case Against Husband By Wife Alleging Sexual Assault Of Daughter By Husband

AKSHITA SAXENA
21 Aug 2019 1:12 PM GMT
This Case Shocked The Conscience Of The Court:Madras HC Quashes False Case Against Husband By Wife Alleging Sexual Assault Of Daughter By Husband
x
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Madras High Court took a stern view against a Complainant who initiated malafide proceedings under Section 6 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 against her husband.

"There were instances when the attention of this Court was drawn to similar such incidents, where false complaint were given as if the husband has committed an offence under POCSO Act against the daughter and it was informed to this Court that such cheap tactics are adopted in the family court cases, just to arm-twist the husband and make him fall in line. This Court was not willing to believe that such instances can happen and this case is an eye-opener for this Court. This Court was made aware, the extent to which POCSO Act can be misused", the court said.

The Complainant, C. Shakunthala, had filed a complaint under the aforementioned provision, accusing her husband, N. Chandramohan, of sexually assaulting the victim, their daughter. She also alleged that the ill-acts of the accused rendered the victim pregnant and she had to undergo abortion procedure.

Subsequently, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused, observing that the complaint in question was frivolous.

Thereafter, the accused filed the present Criminal Original Petition titled "N. Chandramohan v. State & Anr.", before the high court under Section 482 of CrPC, pleading the court to quash the FIR lodged against him.

It was alleged by the accused that there was a dispute between him and the complainant and the present false FIR was filed by her in an act of vengeance. It was alleged that the impugned FIR was an appalling attempt of the complainant to get their daughter's custody, as they were living separately.

In these circumstances, the court enquired the victim girl who denied all the allegations leveled against her father-accused. Further, she stated that she had never undergone treatment at any hospital for aborting child as alleged by her mother-complainant. Her stand was consistent with her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh concluded that the Complainant had lodged a false complaint with an ulterior motive to threaten the accused. He was irked by the callous attitude of the Complainant and agonized by the shameful allegations leveled by her, that too against her daughter and husband. "This case has shocked the conscience of this Court and it is unbelievable that the mother just for the sake of taking custody of her child, can go to the extent of making such serious allegations against her husband by alleging that he is having physical contact with his own daughter", he said.

He was of the opinion that cases such as this one should be dealt with sternly and should be a lesson for all those who attempt to misuse the law merely to satisfy their own selfish ends. "The 2nd respondent should not be let off and she should be made to suffer the consequences for having given a false complaint against her husband at the cost of her own daughter. The respondent police is directed to immediately proceed against the 2nd respondent under Section 22 of the POCSO Act for having given a false complaint and take action against her in accordance with law", the court held while quashing the FIR.

Arguments for the Petitioner were advanced by Advocate V. Ramana Reddy and for the Respondent State by APP M. Mohamed Riyaz. 

Click here to download the Order


Next Story