Case at a glance: In a long-running custody dispute, the Supreme Court has quashed a POCSO FIR lodged by a mother against the father after a CBI investigation, assisted by NIMHANS experts, found the allegations not made out. The Court held that the child's welfare lies with the father and laid down safeguards for police and courts where a POCSO allegation against a parent arises in the middle of a matrimonial dispute, including no hasty arrests and the involvement of child-psychology experts.
The parties married in 2011 and their daughter was born in 2015. After the wife left the matrimonial home with the child in 2018, multiple proceedings followed, including a guardianship petition, divorce and criminal cases. The Family Court awarded custody to the father in 2022, the High Court dismissed the mother's appeal, and the Supreme Court dismissed her SLP in 2023. Custody was handed to the father in June 2023.
In March 2024 the mother lodged an FIR alleging offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and other provisions against the father and his family. The Supreme Court ordered an investigation by a senior woman officer, then stayed the criminal proceedings, and on 7 April 2026 transferred the investigation to the CBI with a committee including two NIMHANS experts. The CBI's final report of 13 July 2026 found the allegations not made out. (The judgment uses initials for the parties and the child; this post does the same.)
The Key Question Before the Court
When a POCSO allegation against a parent surfaces during a matrimonial or custody dispute, how should police and courts proceed, and could the FIR survive the CBI's findings?
Best Interest of the Child and Guarding Against Misuse
The CBI report found that the child's testimony did not appear reliable, noting contradictory statements, the absence of independent corroboration, CCTV footage and the psychological evaluation, and that prolonged parental conflict may have influenced the child's account. The Court held that continuing the case would be an abuse of process and quashed FIR 76/2024. On custody it applied the welfare principle from Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 04 SC CK 0015 and concluded that the child's welfare “will be best served” in the custody and guardianship of the father.
The Court then surveyed decisions on misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes, including Geddam Jhansi, (2025) 02 SC CK 0774 and Achin Gupta, (2024) 05 SC CK 0016, and the arrest safeguards in Section 35 BNSS, Joginder Kumar, (1994) 04 SC CK 0040, Arnesh Kumar, (2014) 07 SC CK 0068 and Satender Kumar Antil, (2022) 07 SC CK 0064. It directed that where a POCSO allegation is made against a parent or co-resident family member and a matrimonial dispute exists, police should not arrest hastily and should engage an expert in child psychiatry or clinical psychology, whose report is an aid and not binding and cannot alone found a charge-sheet or closure report.
What the Court Actually Held
- FIR 76/2024 under the POCSO Act was quashed as an abuse of process.
- Custody and guardianship of the child rest with the father; re-integration was remitted to the Family Court, Bengaluru, assisted by CBI officers and NIMHANS experts.
- Where both threshold conditions exist, police must avoid hasty arrest and engage a child-psychology expert; Special Courts dealing with private complaints should apply a prima facie test.
- The judgment is to be circulated to all criminal courts and police stations with attention to paras 47–77.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It gives investigating officers a structured approach to POCSO complaints arising in family disputes.
- It stresses that expert reports assist but do not replace investigation.
- It protects genuine complaints while guarding against the use of POCSO as a weapon in custody battles.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Family Law Practitioners
- Expect courts to scrutinise POCSO allegations that surface after custody orders.
- Seek expert child-psychology assessment where such allegations arise mid-litigation.
For Criminal Practitioners
- Invoke paras 47–77 at the arrest, remand and bail stages.
- Remember that an expert report alone cannot justify a charge-sheet or a closure report.
Key Takeaways
- The POCSO FIR was quashed after the CBI found the allegations not made out.
- Custody remains with the father.
- No hasty arrest where a parent is accused amid a matrimonial dispute.
- Child-psychology experts must be engaged, but their reports are not binding.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. It lays down procedural safeguards; each complaint must still be investigated on its facts.
The Family Court, Bengaluru, advised by a committee of CBI officers and NIMHANS experts.
The judgment itself uses initials to protect the child's identity.
Conclusion
The judgment balances the seriousness of child sexual abuse allegations with the risk that such allegations can be deployed in bitter custody disputes, and places the child's welfare at the centre.
Practical takeaway: When a POCSO allegation against a parent arises during a matrimonial dispute, police should not rush to arrest, and an expert in child psychiatry or psychology should assist the investigation.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com
Visit CourtKutchehry →