The Supreme Court recently observed that it has become customary for in-laws to be dragged into criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes and children are often used to vilify each other.

“It is commonplace, nay customary that in-laws are dragged in to settle scores in cases arising out of marital discord and often children are used to vilify each other”, the Court observed.

The Court made this observation while quashing a POCSO case against a woman accused of sexually assaulting her five-year-old nephew, highlighting that the case was allegedly a counterblast to another case against the complainant-mother's brother.

The Court held that the Bombay High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR without examining the child's statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and the other material on record, particularly when an earlier Division Bench had prima facie found the complaint to be without substance.

“It was also specifically noticed that the statement of the victim boy recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class indicates that no assault as stated by the de-facto complainant had been occasioned…The Division Bench which considered the matter ideally, ought to have looked into the records especially when another Division Bench; though in an interim order, noticed that prima facie the allegations cannot stand. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is absolutely no reason why the petitioner should be subjected to a trial and the 2nd respondent – the mother, has also not entered appearance despite service having been effected”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by accused and quashed the FIR registered at Khadki Police Station, Pune under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Court directed that no further proceedings be taken pursuant to the FIR.

The appellant was the paternal aunt of five-year-old twins (boy and girl) born to a couple who obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent on September 5, 2023. Custody of the children was granted to the father, while the mother was given visitation rights.

According to the mother's complaint, while she was residing in her matrimonial home, her son had frequently told her that his paternal aunt had pulled his hand onto her breast while sleeping. She also claimed that she had witnessed one such incident. She alleged that although she questioned the accused and informed her husband, he took no action.

Earlier on the same day, the children's father had registered an FIR alleging that the children's maternal uncle (mother's brother) had sexually assaulted the couple's daughter during her visit to her mother's house. According to that complaint, after the girl returned from her mother's house, she complained that her maternal uncle had touched her private parts whenever she visited her mother. She was thereafter taken to Jahangir Hospital for medical examination.

In its judgment, the Bombay High Court had noted that both FIRs appeared to be counter-complaints arising from the estranged relationship between the husband and wife.

The Supreme Court noted that although the mother claimed that her son had disclosed the alleged sexual abuse while she was still living in the matrimonial home and that she had personally witnessed one such incident, no such allegation was raised either during the divorce proceedings or at any time before the FIR was lodged on March 17, 2024, just a few hours after the father lodged the FIR against the children's maternal uncle. The Court observed that, on a plain reading, the first information statement did not inspire confidence.

The Court also referred to an interim order passed by another Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, staying the proceedings after prima facie finding that the complaint lacked substance. That bench had specifically noted that the boy's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class indicated that no assault, as alleged by the complainant, had taken place.

Despite the interim order, the Bombay High Court ultimately dismissed the quashing petition. It observed that although the two FIRs appeared to be counter-attacks, serious accusations had been levelled and the petitioner must undergo trial since it was not permissible to conduct a mini trial while considering a plea for quashing.

Disagreeing with this approach, the Supreme Court observed that although the High Court itself had recorded that it was startled by the allegations, it failed to look at the material on record showing that the boy had not made any such allegation before the Magistrate.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that there was no reason to subject the appellant to a criminal trial.

Advocates Sana Raees Khan and Dhawash represented the appellant.

Case : AS v State of Maharashtra

Case no. – SLP CRL.2163/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 720