The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) against a father accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter. Justice H.P. Sandesh held that the material placed before the Court did not substantiate the allegation and found significant inconsistencies between the complaint, the child’s later statement and the medical record.
The judgment was delivered on September 25, 2026, in two connected criminal petitions concerning matrimonial and custody-related disputes.
Background
The POCSO proceedings arose after the estranged wife complained that the father had misbehaved with their minor daughter during periods when the child was staying with him under an interim custody arrangement.
The High Court noted that the Family Court had earlier permitted the father to take the child on weekends and return her to the mother on Monday. The mother subsequently sought an order restraining him from going to the child’s school, but that application was rejected on March 18, 2017.
The POCSO complaint was filed on March 23, 2017. The Court considered this sequence while examining whether the criminal proceedings could legitimately continue.
Justice Sandesh examined the NIMHANS communication dated May 15, 2017. According to the order, the document recorded the child's fear and anxiety concerning separation from her mother and apprehension about being taken away by her father, but did not record an allegation of sexual abuse.
The Court also noted that the allegation of molestation was absent from the original complaint but appeared in the later statement recorded before the Magistrate. It further observed that the alleged medical confirmation of molestation was not supported by a corresponding NIMHANS report forming part of the record.
The Court stated:
"Though it is stated that the treatment was taken from NIMHANS and alleged that doctor confirmed molestation and the same is not found in the letter dated 15.05.2017 issued by the NIMHANS and there is no any positive material to that effect."
The High Court concluded that the material before it did not provide documentary support for the allegation and that the case fell within the circumstances warranting exercise of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It also observed that rejection of a discharge application or framing of charges does not prevent the High Court from exercising Section 482 jurisdiction where the facts justify interference.
In the connected petition, the Court separately considered proceedings alleging cruelty, assault, criminal intimidation and dowry-related offences against the husband and his family members.
The Court found that the allegations against the second and third accused were general in nature and that there were no specific allegations that they directly demanded money from the complainant. Their proceedings were therefore quashed. However, the allegations against the first accused were considered sufficiently specific to require a trial.
The Karnataka High Court allowed Criminal Petition No.220 of 2018 and quashed the proceedings in Special C.C.No.559/2017 under Section 354A(1) of the IPC and Sections 7 and 11(ii) of the POCSO Act.
Criminal Petition No.8868 of 2017 was allowed in part. The proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3 were quashed, while the petition concerning accused No.1 was dismissed.
