The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by a 52-year-old woman seeking to quash a sexual assault case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, ruling that the legislation is gender neutral and applies equally to men and women.
The case involves allegations that the petitioner, a neighbour of the complainant, sexually assaulted a 13-year-old boy in May 2020. An FIR was registered in June 2024, and the police subsequently filed a chargesheet. The woman, represented by Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha, argued that the case was fabricated due to a financial dispute between the families.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, delivering the order, underscored that the POCSO Act is a “progressive enactment” designed to protect the sanctity of childhood. The court highlighted the Act’s gender neutrality, noting that its beneficent object is to safeguard children “irrespective of sex.”
While acknowledging that certain provisions of the law use gendered language, the court clarified that the purpose and preamble of the Act make it inclusive. Sections 3 and 5, defining sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault, form the basis for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6, and these provisions apply equally to both male and female offenders.
The petitioner had contended that the four-year delay in lodging the complaint undermined the credibility of the case. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that delay cannot be grounds for quashing proceedings in cases involving child victims.
The defence also argued that “psychological impossibility” and the absence of potency testing weakened the allegations. Dismissing this line of reasoning, the court held that such claims “do not hold ground under modern jurisprudence.”
Significantly, the bench dismissed the contention that women can only be passive participants in sexual offences, terming the argument “archaic.” The order observed: “The jurisprudence of present times embraces the lived realities of victims and does not allow stereotypes to cloud legal scrutiny.”
