JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - The petitioner claims to be caught in the crossfire of matrimonial acrimony between his brother and sister-in-law. By this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of a First Information Report ("FIR") registered at the behest of respondent No.2 (original complainant), his sister-in-law, on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR do not make out ingredients of the offences alleged, at least insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the sequence of events leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner's brother got married to respondent No.2 on 19.01.2014. On 14.04.2016, a son was born to them. The petitioner states in the petition that he got married in the year 2013 and that he lives with his wife, separate from his brother and respondent No.2. He used to meet respondent No.2 occasionally at family get-togethers and functions and that he has met parents of respondent No.2 on few occasions during such family functions.

4. On or about 18.03.2020, respondent No.2, her husband i.e. petitioner's brother and their son went to Mahabaleshwar to stay in the bungalow of father of respondent No.2. The parents of respondent No.2 were also in Mahabaleshwar in the said bungalow and while all of them had gone to stay there for a short while, due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the consequent lockdowns, all of them stayed at Mahabaleshwar for almost 4 months. On 15.07.2020, the mother of the petitioner informed him that the son of respondent No.2 had informed his father i.e. the petitioner's brother about an alleged incident of sexual abuse by his grandfather i.e. the father of respondent No.2. This had led to a quarrel between respondent No.2 and petitioner's brother and on 16.07.2020, they returned with their son to Mumbai. In view of the serious allegation made against the father of respondent No.2, there were attempts made to settle the discord.

5. But, things came to a head when on 27.07.2020, respondent No.2, petitioner's brother and mother went to the Police Station at Worli, Mumbai. The petitioner also reached the said police station. The petitioner's brother proceeded to lodge a complaint in the police station against his father-in-law for having allegedly sexually abused his grandchild, while respondent No.2 in another room in the police station lodged a complaint against the petitioner's brother and mother. But, before the complaints could be fully recorded, a police officer on duty intervened and suggested that since it was a family dispute, the same ought to be amicably settled. Thereafter, the parties returned home. According to the petitioner, this was the first occasion after respondent No.2 had returned from Mahabaleshwar that the petitioner had met her.

6. It appears that there were attempts made to amicably settle the dispute and that on 31.07.2020, the parties had met for finding a solution. According to the petitioner, an agreement was reached and the father of respondent No.2 was supposed to give certain statement in writing, but eventually the same did not work out. Thereafter, attempts were made to take the son of respondent No.2 to a child psychologist and when the acrimony between respondent No.2 and her husband i.e. the petitioner's brother increased further, eventually on 25/26.08.2020, the petitioner's brother sent complaints to various police stations as also the Child Welfare Committee for registration of offences against the father of respondent No.2 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act"). It appears that on 14.08.2020 itself, the father of respondent No.2 had submitted a letter before the police station informing that the petitioner's brother may approach the police for lodging a false complaint under the POCSO Act. As a result, registration of offence was delayed and the petitioner's brothe