Case Overview
The Supreme Court has set aside a FIR filed under the POCSO Act. The case involved an aunt of two twins whose parents are embroiled in a bitter divorce and custody fight.
Key Developments
- On 23 July 2026, a two‑judge bench (Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran) criticised the Bombay High Court for refusing to examine the material before staying the case.
- The bench observed that it is "customary" for in‑laws to be dragged into legal battles to settle scores, often using children as weapons.
- The FIR, lodged on 17 March 2024, was filed just hours after the father lodged a counter‑FIR accusing the maternal uncle of abusing the twins' sister.
- The children were in the father's custody with visitation rights to the mother; no allegation of abuse was made at the time of the September 2023 mutual‑consent divorce.
- The victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicated no assault took place.
- Advocate Sana Raees Khan argued the prosecution was an abuse of criminal law to gain advantage in the custody battle.
Important Facts
- The case concerned the paternal aunt of the twins, who are the children of a brother‑sister pair now divorced.
- The division bench of the High Court had initially stayed the proceedings, finding the mother's complaint prima facie baseless.
- The Supreme Court noted that the rival FIRs do not relieve it of the duty to examine whether a prima facie offence exists.
- It ordered that no further action be taken on the FIR against the aunt, effectively quashing the case.
Exam Relevance
This judgment touches upon several topics important for the UPSC examination:
- Role of the Division Bench in higher courts and the principle of judicial review.
- Application of the POCSO Act and its limits when allegations are intertwined with family disputes.
- Understanding of custody battles and how they can influence criminal proceedings.
- Procedural safeguards such as recording statements under Section 164 CrPC.
Way Forward
Legal experts suggest that courts must vigilantly separate genuine child‑protection concerns from matrimonial vendettas. Lawmakers may consider clearer guidelines for filing FIRs under the POCSO Act when family disputes are involved. Strengthening the role of child welfare committees and ensuring timely, unbiased recording of victim statements can prevent misuse of criminal law in custody fights.