"Aimed at Instilling Fear": Bombay HC Rejects Bid to Quash Child Abuse Charges in Beach Assault Case

In a ruling emphasizing protection against both physical harm and psychological terror on minors, the High Court of Bombay at Goa on April 29, 2026, dismissed a petition by four men seeking to quash an FIR for allegedly assaulting and threatening a young boy. Single-judge Justice Ashish S. Chavan held that the incident—punching the victim near the throat and issuing death threats—prima facie constituted "child abuse" under Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 , read with IPC provisions.

The petitioners, Helcino A. Fernandes and three members of the Da Silva family ( Frank Melroy Da Silva , Augustinho Shelton Da Silva , and Jose Francisco Da Silva ), faced charges under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC , and Section 8 of the Act r/w Section 34 IPC . The complaint stemmed from Menino Fernandes , father of the minor victim.

From Football Fun to Family Feud Fury

The trouble brewed amid a simmering rivalry over beach water sports activities between the victim's family and the Da Silva brothers. On November 11, 2023, the minor boy, after playing football on a Majorda beach, was approached near a sports shed while drinking water.

According to the victim's complaint (filed November 11, received November 13) and his statement under Section 164 CrPC , Helcino Fernandes grabbed his T-shirt collar, punched him near the throat causing swelling (corroborated by a medical hurt certificate showing neck tenderness), and threatened: "I would break you like I broke your father." Augustinho Da Silva vowed to break the boy's legs to end his football days, while Frank Da Silva threatened to choke him to death. This followed a prior assault on October 21, 2023, by the Da Silva brothers.

Eyewitnesses, friends of the victim's mother, partially corroborated the commotion and identified two assailants. The Colva Police Station registered FIR No. 79/2023 on November 14, leading to chargesheet No. 3/2024 before the Children's Court at Panaji .

The core legal question: Do these allegations, taken at face value, attract Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act ? Petitioners argued for quashing only this count, claiming no "child abuse" under Section 2(m) .

Petitioners' Plea: "Just a Simple Quarrel"

Advocate Nigel da Costa Frias contended the acts were a "solitary, isolated incident" unfit for the Act's serious ambit, citing the Supreme Court's Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. State of Goa (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1828) . There, a casual school bag hit during a quarrel didn't qualify as abuse lacking "intention to cause harm, cruelty, or ill-treatment."

He distinguished precedents like Suresh Narvekar (2010) (accidental firecracker burns), Sarvesh Vernekar (2023) (mere threats), Smita Khaunte (2015) (attempted attack), Dinesh Gawas (2025) (spur-of-moment chase after child's insult), Priya Karekar (2017) (verbal abuse post-glass breakage), urging quashing as minor acts from a neighborhood spat.

Prosecution's Pushback: Escalation, Not Impulse

Additional Public Prosecutor S. Karpe countered that Section 2(m) defines "child abuse" as "maltreatment, whether habitual or not," encompassing physical/psychological abuse. The prior October assault showed repetition and escalation—involving family friend Helcino—aimed at instilling life-long fear.

No provocation preceded the unprovoked punch and threats like choking anywhere found. Victim's fear confined him indoors. Advocate Anacleto Viegas for respondent Menino Fernandes supported.

Court's Sharp Distinction: Fear Factory, Not Fleeting Fight

Justice Chavan dissected Santosh Khajnekar , noting its "simple blow with a school bag" as trivial—unlike here, where premeditated assault plus threats referenced the father's beating created "psychological pressure." Prior animosity over water sports underscored intent.

Section 2(m) explicitly includes non-habitual acts: "psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty... any act... which debases, degrades or demeans." Eyewitness and medical evidence prima facie proved it. Other High Court cases were factually distinguishable—accidental, reactive, or verbal only.

In Dr. Vasudev Deshprabhu (2024) , the court affirmed: even "a solitary incident of psychological or physical abuse... amounts to child abuse," aligning with the Act's child-friendly object.

Key Observations

"The allegations clearly demonstrate, prima facie, that the act of verbal and psychological abuse coupled with physical assault was not a solitary incident. The incident itself was not a momentary act during a quarrel."

"From a perusal of the above provision, it is clear that physical abuse, psychological abuse, cruelty and maltreatment of a child come within the scope of the definition of Section 2(m)."

"The threats given by the Petitioners that they would kill the victim by choking him wherever he is found... prima facie, seem to be calculated to strike fear in the mind of the victim."

As media reports noted, the court observed the threats were " aimed at creating psychological fear ," refusing to quash.

No Relief: Trial to Proceed

"The Criminal Writ Petition No.20/2026 is rejected. Rule is discharged."

The FIR, chargesheet, and proceedings stand. Observations won't bind the trial court on merits. This reinforces thresholds for child abuse FIRs, signaling courts won't lightly dismiss credible minor victim claims amid patterns of intimidation—potentially deterring trivial misuse while safeguarding vulnerable youth in community disputes.