Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Case of Vexatious Litigation Based Around Matrimonial Feud

In yet another case the Supreme Court quashed a POCSO complaint filed by an estranged wife against her husband and his family on the finding that the allegations made are vague and are a part of matrimonial dispute, lacking medical evidence and witness tutioring.

The case is stemmed long-standing matrimonial dispute between a husband (Appellant No. 1) and his estranged wife (Respondent No. 2), who married in 2008. Following their separation in 2011, the couple’s daughter remained in the care and custody of the father and his family for nearly fourteen years and during this time, the parties were embroiled in over ten civil and criminal cases, ranging from dowry harassment to domestic violence and even cross-FIRs for murder.

In May 2024, the daughter (victim) left her father's home and began living with her mother. Four months later, the mother filed a criminal complaint alleging that the father and his brother (uncle) had repeatedly raped the girl while she was in their custody, and that the grandmother and aunt had assaulted her with a hammer.

The Special Court at Meerut took cognizance and summoned the family to stand trial, when a quash petition is moved the Allahabad High Court refused to quash.

The bench by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, taking the note of lack of any medical proof, held that while an injury report is not always a sine qua non, the Court held that the total absence of medical examination—especially for a specific injury like the alleged insertion of a hammer rod—was fatal to a case already marred by bad blood.

Additionally, on the witnes testimony, the Apex Court analyzed and clarified that while consistency is expected in witness statements, "parrot-like" verbatim reproduction of facts by different witnesses indicates collaboration and concoction rather than genuine memory.

Observing a "worrying trend" where estranged spouses present a "bouquet" of frivolous claims—dowry, cruelty, and now increasingly POCSO allegations—to settle personal scores or force lucrative settlements, the Apex Court held that using a child as a pawn to file false sexual abuse charges against a father is the "uglier side of litigation". Such claims carry a massive social stigma that can ruin a person's reputation irreparably.

The Supreme Court on emphasizing the 'Duty of Bar", held that advocates have a social responsibility to discourage clients from filing "phantom claims" and should treat matrimonial disputes as human problems rather than opportunities to escalate litigation.

The Apex Court found the case to be a 'Vexatious Litigation' as such there are no medical evidence or specific factual details to support such grave charges, additionally, the Court also highlighted that the statements of the mother and daughter were virtually identical—reproduced "parrot-like" in the same order and tone—which suggested they were the result of tutoring during the months the child spent with her mother before the complaint was filed.

Thus, The Bench, while allowing the appeal and quashing the case, found that this case falls squarely under the Bhajan Lal guidelines, as the proceedings were manifestly attended with mala fide intent for wreaking vengeance and a manifest abuse of the process of law.

CORAM: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.