The court ruled that allegations under the POCSO Act were used by a parent to manipulate judicial proceedings, emphasizing the protective role of the law against abuse in custody disputes.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question entire proceedings in Special C.C. No. 138 of 2022 connected with Special C.C. No. 982 of 2019 arising out of a crime registered in Crime No. 101 of 2019 on a reference being made in P.C.R. No. 25 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge for offences punishable under Sections 354 , 354A, 370, 504 and 509 of IPC r/w Sections 7 , 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

2. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

One (xxxxxx) D/o of the 2nd respondent is the complainant. The 2nd respondent and Smt. Shruthi Cauvery Iyer got married on 26-04-2007. On 06-05-2008 a child is born from the wedlock. On 17-04-2017, on the ground that the relationship between the 2nd respondent and the mother of the child turned sore, it ended up in a divorce pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into between the two in M.C. No. 5160 of 2015. The agreement was to the effect that the custody of the child was to remain with the mother and the 2nd respondent/husband had visitation rights. The further term of the settlement was, in the event one of the parents was travelling, the child would remain in the custody of non-travelling parent. This was for the reason that the mother of the child had to visit United States for studies.

3. After drawing up of the aforesaid terms of settlement, the mother of the child leaves to United States on 30-12-2018 to complete her further studies. At that point in time, the child stayed with the 2nd respondent/father for over five months. The mother returns to India and on 05-05-2019 called upon the 2nd respondent to hand over the child to her custody in terms of the settlement agreement. This appears to have been refused by the 2nd respondent. Not stopping at that, the 2nd respondent on 27-05-2019 filed Guardian and Wards case in G&WC No. 149 of 2019 before the Family Court seeking custody of the child. The mother then files an execution petition in E.P. No. 108 of 2019 seeking restoration of custody of her daughter in terms of the settlement agreement. Therefore, two proceedings sprang from one act of the 2nd respondent not returning the child to the mother.

4. On 04-06-2019 the 2nd respondent/father files a private complaint against the petitioner and other accused in P.C.R. No. 25 of 2019 before the L Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru alleging offences punishable under Sections 354 , 354A, 370, 504 and 509 of IPC r/w Sections 7 , 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The learned Sessions Judge refers the matter for investigation which becomes a crime in crime No. 101 of 2019 before the Cubbon Park Police Station for the aforesaid offences. Later, the 2nd respondent files a memo before the concerned Court seeking to include the mother of the child as accused No. 3 in the FIR. The 1st respondent/Police filed a charge sheet against accused No. 2 and drops the name of the petitioner who was arrayed as accused No. 1 and the mother accused No. 3 from the array of accused in the charge sheet. The Special Court takes cognizance of the offence against accused No. 2 for offences punishable under Sections 9 (m), 11 and 12 of POCSO Act in Special Case No. 982 of 2019.

5. The 2nd respondent/complainant files a protest petition on 06-09-2019 against dropping of the names of accused Nos. 1 and 3 and the protest petition comes to be allowed by the