Introduction:
In AS v. State of Maharashtra [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 720], the Supreme Court reiterated that criminal law should not become a weapon for settling personal scores arising out of matrimonial disputes. A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran quashed an FIR registered against a woman accused of sexually assaulting her five-year-old nephew under Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The case arose from a bitter matrimonial dispute between the parents of five-year-old twins. Following their divorce by mutual consent, custody of the children remained with the father while the mother was granted visitation rights. Shortly after the father lodged an FIR accusing the children’s maternal uncle of sexually abusing his daughter, the mother filed another FIR alleging that the children’s paternal aunt had sexually assaulted her son.
The Supreme Court found that the allegations against the aunt appeared to be a retaliatory complaint and observed that it has unfortunately become customary for in-laws to be implicated in criminal proceedings arising from marital discord, with children often being used as instruments in such disputes.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellant contended that the FIR was a malicious counterblast filed only after the father initiated criminal proceedings against the complainant’s brother. It was argued that the complaint was motivated by vengeance rather than genuine concern for the child.
The appellant further submitted that the mother claimed to have witnessed the alleged incident while she was still residing in her matrimonial home, yet she neither informed the authorities nor raised the issue during the divorce proceedings. The complaint surfaced only after the criminal case against her brother, seriously affecting its credibility.
It was also argued that the child’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate clearly indicated that no such sexual assault had taken place. The appellant relied upon an earlier interim order of the Bombay High Court, where another Division Bench had already observed that the allegations lacked substance and stayed the proceedings. Therefore, compelling the appellant to undergo a criminal trial would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
The State opposed the plea, contending that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act. It argued that the High Court rightly refused to quash the FIR since disputed questions of fact could only be examined during trial. According to the prosecution, the seriousness of allegations involving a child required a full-fledged trial instead of premature judicial interference.
Court’s Judgment:
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court adopted an unduly technical approach by refusing to examine the material already available on record. The Court observed that while a High Court ordinarily does not conduct a mini-trial in quashing proceedings, it is nevertheless duty-bound to examine whether continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.
The Court found it significant that the complainant alleged both prior disclosure by the child and her own personal knowledge of the alleged incident while living in the matrimonial home. Despite this, no complaint was made during the subsistence of the marriage, throughout the divorce proceedings, or immediately thereafter. The FIR was lodged only a few hours after the father accused the complainant’s brother of sexually assaulting the daughter.
The Bench held that the timing of the complaint substantially weakened its credibility. It also attached considerable importance to the child’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate, which did not support the allegations made in the FIR. The Court observed that the High Court ought to have examined this crucial material, particularly when an earlier Division Bench had already prima facie concluded that the complaint lacked substance.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning that looking into such material would amount to conducting a mini-trial. It clarified that where undisputed documents demonstrate that the criminal process is being misused, courts are empowered to exercise their inherent jurisdiction to prevent unnecessary prosecution.
The Bench remarked that matrimonial litigation has increasingly witnessed the misuse of criminal law, observing that it has become commonplace for in-laws to be dragged into criminal proceedings and, in some unfortunate cases, children are used to vilify family members. While emphasizing that every allegation of child sexual abuse must be treated with utmost seriousness, the Court cautioned that false or retaliatory complaints equally undermine the administration of justice and dilute the credibility of genuine victims.
Considering the totality of circumstances, including the unexplained delay, the retaliatory nature of the complaint, the child’s own statement before the Magistrate, and the absence of any material supporting the prosecution, the Court concluded that there was absolutely no justification for compelling the appellant to face a criminal trial.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment, quashed the FIR registered at Khadki Police Station, Pune under Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and directed that no further proceedings be continued against the appellant.