Introduction:
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against two brothers, highlighting the misuse of legal provisions in familial property disputes. The case, titled X & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others, revolved around allegations made by a sister against her brothers, accusing them of sexual assault and harassment. Justice M. Nagaprasanna presided over the matter, ultimately determining that the complaint was a retaliatory measure stemming from ongoing property disagreements among the siblings.
Arguments Presented:
Petitioners’ Perspective:
The brothers, represented by Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar and Advocate Anuradha Urs, M.D., contended that the FIR was a strategic move in a series of legal battles over family property. They argued that multiple civil and criminal cases had been filed among the siblings, and the current complaint was a counterblast intended to exert pressure and settle personal scores. The defence emphasised that the allegations lacked substantive evidence and were inconsistent with the complainant’s previous statements.
Respondent’s Perspective:
The complainant, through Senior Advocate D.R. Ravishankar and Advocate Rajesh Gowda, maintained that the investigation was still in its early stages and that the High Court should not interfere prematurely. They asserted that the allegations were serious and warranted a thorough investigation to ensure justice.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice M. Nagaprasanna meticulously examined the circumstances surrounding the case. The court noted that the complainant and the accused were siblings embroiled in a protracted property dispute, with multiple cases filed against each other. The FIR in question accused the brothers of attempting to rape their sister, pulling her hair, tearing her clothes, and harassing her.
Upon reviewing the complainant’s statement, the court observed that there was no mention of inappropriate touching or other actions that would substantiate charges under the POCSO Act. The court referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), which emphasised that courts should consider the overall context leading to the registration of a crime, especially when it appears to be a means of personal vendetta.
Justice Nagaprasanna concluded that the FIR was an abuse of the legal process, intended to harass the petitioners amid a family property dispute. The court stated, “Permitting further investigation into the case at hand qua any offence would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”
Accordingly, the court quashed the FIR and all proceedings initiated under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Sections 354, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.