WWW.LIVELAW.

IN

Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.08.2019

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

CRL.O.P.No.21414 of 2019

N.Chandramohan .. Petitioner

-vs-

1.The State by
The Inspector of Police,
W-6, All Women Police Station,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.
(Crime No.11/2018)

2.C.Shakunthala ..Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code, to call for records and quash the FIR in

Crime No.11 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramana Reddy

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz (for R1)

1/10
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2019

ORDER

This is one of those unfortunate cases where the wife has

resorted to giving a complaint against her husband alleging that he

has committed sexual assault against their daughter, who is aged

about 11 years.

2.The 2nd respondent has given a complaint to the respondent

police stating that she married the petitioner in the year 2003 and

out of the said wedlock, two girl children were born and they are

aged about 11 years and 1½ years respectively. The complaint

proceeds as if there is an illicit relationship between the petitioner,

who is the father and the daughter, who is aged about 11 years and

the 2nd respondent is said to have warned the petitioner regarding

the same. The 2nd respondent proceeds to allege that she was able

to see some bodily changes of her elder daughter and goes to the

extent of saying that the elder daughter also became pregnant and

the same was terminated by giving native medicine. Therefore, the

2nd respondent has removed both the daughters from the custody of

the petitioner and handed them over to the Government Home.

3.When the above complaint was given by the 2 nd respondent,

2/10
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2019

going by the serious allegations made in the compliant, the

respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.11 of 2018 for an

offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Child from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012.

4.The petitioner apprehended arrest by the respondent police

and therefore approached this Court by filing an Anticipatory Bail

petition in Crl.O.P.No.30114 of 2018. 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.

5.The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

“2.The case of the prosecution is that the

defacto complainant is the mother of the victim girl

and she lodged a complaint that the father of the

victim girl, that is her husband had sexually

assaulted their own daughter aged about 13 years.

Hence the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the

3/10
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2019

petitioner would submit that the petitioner is none

other than the father of the victim girl. There was a

dispute between the petitioner and the defacto

complainant, therefore a false complaint filed as

against the petitioner. Further he also submits that

the defacto complainant and the petitioner were

separated from their matrimonial life and their

children are in custody of the petitioner, and he

sought for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor

would submit that the petitioner is the father of the

victim girl and he sexually assaulted the victim

minor girl. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory

bail to the petitioner.

5.In this regard, this Court has enquired the

victim girl, during which she completely denied the

allegations lodged by the defacto complainant.

Further, she stated that she never undergone

treatment at any hospital for aborting child as

alleged by the defacto complainant. It is seen that

4/10
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2019

the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint

with an ulterior motive to threaten the petitioner.”

6.This Court categorically found that the defacto complainant

lodged a false complaint with an ulterior motive to threaten the

petitioner and thereby granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR

on the ground that the FIR itself is an abuse of process of law and is

being used as an instrument to threaten the petitioner and to wreck

vengeance against the petitioner.

8.This Court summoned the 164 statement recorded by the

learned 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 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

learned Judge.

5/10
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2019

9.The victim girl has taken a very consistent stand both at the

time of giving statement under Section 164 of 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 2nd respondent is 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 aged about 11 years.

10.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.

11.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

6/10
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2019

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.

12.The object of the POCSO Act was to protect children from

offence of sexual assault, sexual harassment, etc., and that is why

the Act specifically provides for a legal presumption as to the

commission of the offence and the culpable mental state, once a

prosecution is launched under this Act. The burden of proof is upon

the accused to prove that he had no such mental state with respect

to the Act charged as an offence in that prosecution. The

consequences of prosecuting a person under this Act are very

serious and apart from providing for stringent punishments, the

person who is prosecuted virtually comes down in the eyes of the

society at large and he is virtually shunned from the main stream of

the society.

13.Fortunately in this case, the concerned child was able to

express herself very clearly both before this Court as well as the

Court below and therefore on the face of it, this Court was able to

7/10
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2019

find that the Act has been misused by the 2nd respondent. If that

had 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.

14.In the considered view of this Court, the prosecution

against the petitioner should not continue even for a minute more

and it has to be immediately interfered and the FIR has to be

quashed, in order to bring to an end a malicious prosecution which

is of monstrous proportions. The 2nd respondent even without caring

for the future of her own daughter, has proceeded to give a

complaint alleging illicit relationship between her husband and

daughter, just to make the petitioner fall in line and to get the

daughters into her custody. This is the worst type of false

prosecution a Court can ever encounter.

15.In the considered view of this Court, 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

8/10
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2019

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.

16.In the result, the F.I.R. in Crime No.11 of 2018 is quashed

in so far as the petitioner is concerned and the respondent police is

directed to alter the FIR based on this order and proceed against

the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant under Section 22 of the

Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

17.This Criminal Original Petition is accordingly allowed.

20.08.2019

Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vs/jas

To
1.The Inspector of Police,
W-6, All Women Police Station,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.

2.The Public Prosecutor,

9/10
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Crl.O.P.No.21414 of 2019

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

vs/jas

CRL.O.P.No.21414 of 2019

20.08.2019

10/10