'POCSO Act Is Gender Neutral': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Woman Booked For Sexually Assaulting Minor Boy

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (August 18) dismissed a 52-year-old woman's plea for quashing a sexual assault complaint registered by the parents of a minor boy against her under the POCSO Act, observing that the provisions of the Act apply to both men and women and thus the act is "gender neutral". 

 Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said “POSCO Act being a progressive enactment is intended to safe guard sanctity of childhood it is rooted in gender neutrality with its beneficient object being protection of children, irrespective of sex. The act is thus gender neutral.”

It added, “Section 3 and 5 (POCSO Act), which form the foundation of offences under sections 4 and 6 of the Act delineate various forms of assault, although certain provisions may employ gendered pronouns the preamble and the purpose of the act render such usage inclusive, therefore it is inclusive of both male and female...The ingredients of Section 4 of the Act dealing with penetrative sexual assault are equally applicable to both men and women. The language of provision clearly indicates inclusivity, the ingredients of offences the once punishable under section 4 and 6 are clearly met in the case at hand, albeit prima facie.”

Rejecting the contention of the accused that there was a delay of four years in registration of crime, the court said, “The delay in the registration of crime cannot become a reason for quashment of proceedings owing to the alleged offence and age of the victim.”

The court further said that the argument regarding psychological impossibility and absence of potency testing of the accused fall flat in the light of modern jurisprudence.

The court also held that the submission that a woman is only a passive participant and the man is an active participant is to be "emphatically rejected".

"As the thought itself is archaic, the jurisprudence of present times embraces livid realities of victim and does not allow stereotypes to cloud legal scrutiny,” the court said. 

Following which it held “Therefore none of the submissions made by the senior counsel merit acceptance and thus finding no merit the petition stands dismissed.”

Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the complaint under Sections 4 (Punishment for penetrative sexual assault) and 6(Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act is lodged after four years. The alleged offence took place in 2020 and an FIR was filed in this year.

Pasha had contended that charges of aggravated sexual assault are levelled against the petitioner for allegedly committing the offence on a 13-year-old school going boy, who was earlier neighbour of the petitioner. There was some financial transaction between the parties and to avoid the repayment they (complainant) have set up this case, he claimed. 

The bench in its interim order last year had said, “The case projects a strange circumstance. The petitioner is alleged of the ingredients of Section 4 and 6 of Act against a 13-year-old boy. The petitioner is a lady of 52-years. The incident is said to have happened on May 1, 2020. The complainant is registered on June 26, 2024 after four years. The ld senior counsel would submit that there are a plethora of financial transactions between the parties. Using the child of 13-years of an alleged incident of the 2020 of the petitioner indulging in penetrative sexual assault against a boy, the crime is sought to be registered and police have filed chargesheet”.

In the light of the importance that the case had generated Pasha had made additional submission after the court had reserved its order in June and requested the Court to hold In-camera proceedings, due to the nature of the offence that is alleged, which was done.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha for Advocate Mohammed Mubarak

 Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 276

Counsel for State: ASPP B N Jagadeesha

Counsel for Respondent 2: Ashok G.V., Advocate A/W Smt.Monika H.B., Advocate

Case No: CRL.P 12777/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment