POCSO Law Cannot Be Used to Settle Property Disputes Between Siblings”: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Based on Family Rivalry

“Permitting investigation into such offences would be an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice” — Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR under the POCSO Act and Indian Penal Code against family members amidst an ongoing property dispute. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, allowing the criminal petition filed by the accused siblings, found that the sexual harassment complaint lodged by their sister was a retaliatory move in the context of longstanding civil and criminal litigation over ancestral property. The Court held: “The offences under the Act are loosely laid and it is only to wreak vengeance that the complaint is registered.”

The complainant, a woman residing in Bengaluru, alleged that on May 18, 2024, her daughter (aged 17) was harassed by her uncles—petitioners in this case—when she and her brother went out for a walk. The FIR was registered four days later under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, along with Sections 354, 506, and 34 IPC, accusing the brothers of assault and attempted rape.

However, the petitioners submitted that the complaint was a fabricated retaliation in a property dispute dating back several years. The Court recorded: “Petitioners and complainant are siblings involved in numerous litigations… The present complaint is a counterblast to those proceedings.”

“Ingredients of Sexual Assault and Harassment Under POCSO Not Made Out”: Court Analyzes Section 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the Act

The Court scrutinized the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC and found no specific allegations of sexual intent or inappropriate touching.

Quoting Section 7 of the POCSO Act, the Court emphasized that: “Whoever, with sexual intent, touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child… is said to commit sexual assault.”

Finding no such allegation, the Court noted: “Except a vague reference that her hair was pulled and clothes were torn, there is no statement made by the victim about inappropriate touching.”

Similarly, the Court rejected application of Section 12 (sexual harassment) and Section 11 (which defines harassment), observing: “None of the ingredients under Section 11 is present even to its remotest sense.”

“Even Offence Under Section 354 IPC Not Made Out”: No Evidence of Intent to Outrage Modesty

The Court held that mere physical altercation or scuffle without any intent to outrage modesty does not fall within Section 354 IPC. It stated: “The entire complaint is narrating frivolous details of offences under the Act. There is nothing to indicate even a prima facie offence under Section 354 IPC.”

“No Criminal Intimidation Under Section 506 IPC Either”: Threat Allegations Held Baseless

The FIR also included allegations under Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation), but the Court found no threat that met the threshold under Section 503 IPC.
“There is no foundation laid for an offence under Section 506 as well. Therefore, the said offence is also loosely laid.”

Allowing the petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR, citing its abusive nature rooted in family property rivalry. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. and reiterated that courts must guard against criminal law being weaponized in family feuds.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna concluded: “Complainant is the sister and the petitioners are her brothers. In that light, the crime being registered to wreak vengeance cannot be accepted… permitting investigation would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Date of Decision: April 25, 2025