Karnataka High Court Quashes POCSO Complaint Lodged By Sister Against Her Brothers Over Property Dispute
While quashing an FIR registered on the complaint of a woman under POCSO Act against her brothers, the Karnataka High Court noted that the siblings were fighting over property and it was in this light the crime was registered as a counter-blast which cannot be accepted. Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution initiated against the petitioners under...
While quashing an FIR registered on the complaint of a woman under POCSO Act against her brothers, the Karnataka High Court noted that the siblings were fighting over property and it was in this light the crime was registered as a counter-blast which cannot be accepted.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution initiated against the petitioners under Sections 8(Punishment for sexual assault) and 12(Punishment for sexual harassment) POCSO Act and Sections 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506(criminal intimidation) and 34(common intention) of the IPC.
It said “Complainant is the sister and the petitioners are her brothers. They are fighting for property by registering several cases. In that light, the crime being registered to wreak vengeance or as a counterblast cannot be accepted. 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".
As per the complainant woman, after the death of her mother the dispute between her and her brothers loomed large with regard to the property. On 18-05-2024 at about 3.00 p.m. when the victim and her brother had gone for a walk near the house, the accused/petitioners followed them in order to kill them and pushed the victim down and attempted to rape her.
When she attempted to escape from the clutches of the two, she was harassed and therefore, the complaint came to be registered against these petitioners.
The petitioners argued that the siblings have have filed several civil and criminal cases against each other and all of them are pending consideration before jurisdictional Courts. A dispute with regard to the property is projected to become the aforesaid crime only as a counterblast or to arm-twist the petitioners. This case cannot be permitted to settle personal scores, it was argued.
The complainant opposed the plea contending, investigation in the case is still to be done. In such cases this court at this juncture should not interfere and scuttle investigation.
Findings
The bench referring to the statement of the complainant and said “Insofar as the offences under the Act is concerned the statement is that her hair was pulled and clothes were torn by the said act. Except this statement, there is no statement made by the victim about the petitioners having inappropriately touched the victim.”
Relying on Apex Court judgment in the case of MAHMOOD ALI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2023) wherein the apex court had said that the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not restrict itself to the stage of the case, but should take note of overall circumstances leading to registration of the crime.
"Sometimes crimes would be registered to wreak vengeance out of private or personal grudge or as a counterblast. It is in those cases the Apex Court holds that this Court should step in and obliterate the crime," the court said.
Accordingly it allowed the petition and quashed the case:
Case Title: X & others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Counsel for petitioners: Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar A/W Advocate Anuradha Urs M D
Counsel for State: HCGP Rangaswamy for R1.
Counsel for R2: Senior Advocate D.R Ravishankar A/W Advocate Rajesh Gowda
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6965 OF 2024