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