The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a former judicial officer accused of sexually abusing his own daughter, observing that the allegations were of a โshockingโ nature and must be addressed at trial.
A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan was hearing a special leave petition filed by the former judge, challenging an April 15 order of the Bombay High Court that had declined to discharge him from the case. The High Court had refused to quash the FIR and charges filed under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
“Serious Allegations of Incest”
During the hearing, the petitionerโs counsel argued that the case stemmed from a long-standing matrimonial dispute and was being used as a tool of retaliation. He submitted that the allegations had surfaced several years after the incidents were alleged to have occurred and pointed out that the complainantโhis wifeโhad been aware of them since 2014 but initiated legal proceedings only in 2019.
However, the Bench expressed deep concern over the nature of the accusations, stating:
โWe donโt want to get into all this. Suicide may be because of the sonโs actions. The daughter is making an allegationโฆ Itโs a shocking case. He is a judicial officer and these are serious allegations of incest! This is shocking. And the daughter has made the allegations. She must have been scarred for life. How can this be a case for quashing?โ
Rejecting the plea, the Court declined to examine the petitionerโs claims about alleged background motives and refused to interfere with the High Courtโs order. The matter was dismissed with a direction that the trial court expedite the proceedings.
Charges and Timeline
According to the plea, the FIR was registered on January 21, 2019, at Bhandara in Maharashtra, relating to incidents that allegedly took place between May 2014 and 2018. The chargesheet has been filed, but formal charges are yet to be framed before the Special POCSO Court.
The petitioner has been booked under:
- Section 354 of IPC โ Assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty;
- Sections 7, 8, 9(l), 9(n), and 10 of the POCSO Act โ Pertaining to sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, and sexual assault by a person in a position of trust or authority, including a relative.
The petition also claimed that the complaint was lodged shortly after the suicide of the petitionerโs father in December 2018. The father allegedly left a suicide note blaming the complainant and her family. It was further submitted that the daughter’s statement had been manipulated and recorded only after the fatherโs death.
The petitioner also challenged the High Courtโs reliance on the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act, arguing that such a presumption cannot be invoked at the pre-trial stage in the absence of foundational facts.
With the Supreme Court refusing to interfere, the case will now proceed before the trial court under the POCSO framework.
