Chennai: Expressing shock over the misuse of the provisions of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, by a mother, the Madras high court has said it is unbelievable that the mother just for the sake of taking custody of her 11-year-old child, can go to the extent of making such serious allegations against her husband that he is having physical contact with his own daughter.
Quashing an FIR registered for an offence under section 6 of the Pocso Act against the husband based on a complaint given by the mother alleging that her husband committed sexual assault against their daughter, Justice N.Anand Venkatesh said the mother 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 police is directed to immediately proceed against the mother under section 22 of the Pocso Act for having given a false complaint and take action against her in accordance with law. This case should be a lesson for all those who attempt to misuse the provisions of this Act, just to satisfy their own selfish ends”, the judge added.
In her complaint, the mother also alleged that her daughter also became pregnant and the same was terminated by giving native medicine.
The judge said the petitioner (husband) apprehended arrest by the police and approached this court by filing an anticipatory bail petition earlier. Since this court was shocked at the allegations made in the complaint, this court summoned the minor girl in order to enquire her in person. The minor/victim girl appeared before this court and completely denied the allegations made against the petitioner.
This court categorically found that the defacto complainant (mother) lodged a false complaint with an ulterior motive to threaten the petitioner and thereby granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR on the ground that the FIR itself was an abuse of process of law and was being used as an instrument to threaten the petitioner and to wreck vengeance against the petitioner, the judge added.
The judge said this court summoned the 164 statement recorded by the Additional Family Court Judge, Egmore, from the victim girl. While questioning the victim girl has clearly narrated the entire incident and it can be seen that the defacto complainant was attempting to take the daughters (the victim girl and another one and half year old girl) into her custody and for that purpose she has cooked up a false story against the petitioner.
The victim girl has gone to the extent of saying that she and her younger sister wanted to go with their father, when enquired by the judge. The victim girl has taken a very consistent stand both at the time of giving statement under section164 Cr.P.C and at the time when she was personally enquired by this court, at the time of considering the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner. “It is clear that the allegations made by the mother are completely false and she has given the complaint with an ulterior motive against the petitioner.
Unfortunately, she has gone to the extent of casting aspersion against the petitioner as if he has illicit relationship with his own daughter, the judge added.
The judge said there were instances when the attention of this court was drawn to similar such incidents, where false complaints 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 were 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 was an eye opener for this court. This court was made aware, the extent to which Pocso Act can be misused. “Fortunately, in this case, the child concerned was able to express herself very clearly both before this court and court below and therefore on the face of it, this court was able to find that the Act has been misused by the mother. If that has not happened, the petitioner would have been forced to go through the rigour of a trial and the situation would have turned even more murkier”, the judge added.