Dismissing the quashing petition, the high court held that the contention of the petitioner's counsel that allegations are baseless and false appears to be premature, in light of the minor boy's statement and the fact that chargesheet had been filed in the case. (File)The Delhi High Court refused to quash a first information report (FIR) registered against a man accused of sexually abusing his minor son holding that the boy had the constitutional right to get justice if he was a victim of sexual abuse. The case is pending trial before a Delhi court.
A single judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing a quashing petition filed by the father in an FIR registered against him for aggravated sexual assault (Section 10) and sexual harassment (Section 12) under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act at the Dwarka police station. The father said that the allegations against him were false and concocted due to marital discord between him and his wife.
The petitioner was arrested and later granted bail by the concerned court. A chargesheet was filed against which the father approached the high court for “quashing FIR and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom”, the judgment records. The matter is pending trial before the additional sessions judge (Pocso) South West Dwarka Courts.
Justice Sharma observed that the minor boy in his statement before a magistrate had narrated specific incidents of sexual abuse, the manner in which it was committed and the places, time and date of such abuses. The court also noted that such cases cannot be treated as cases of matrimonial discord observing that the child, who is a victim, has the individual constitutional right to get justice in case he was sexually abused.
“To deny the child victim the right to get such justice only because one of the parties involved happens to be his real father and his father and mother have matrimonial discord will be highly unfair,” Justice Sharma held.
The boy’s mother had alleged that the father used to inappropriately touch his son and on multiple occasions over three years abused him in the said manner. Disputes arose between the father and the mother pursuant to which the mother took her son to live with her brother in July 2021.
The mother consulted a child psychologist and the doctor informed her that her son had been molested by his father. The doctor submitted her final report on December 6, 2021, which was not descriptive. However, later on, the report was provided with specific details of sexual abuse, which are part of the record, the court observed.
The mother alleged that in June 2021, the boy confided in her that his father had allegedly groped him, touched his rear and “very badly” kissed him and said, “tumhe accha lag raha hai?”.
The counsel for the petitioner argued the FIR is based on false, fabricated and concocted facts due to the estranged relationship between the petitioner and mother and that she had used their minor son who is the victim in this case to “harass the petitioner and to satisfy her false ego”. The counsel further argued that the mother had previously filed “false and fabricated complaints” against the father and his family members for cruelty and criminal intimidation in Noida in 2008 which was subsequently quashed by Allahabad High Court in 2011.
The prosecution argued that the allegations levelled against the petitioner have been substantiated by the report of the psychologist and counsellor and the statement recorded by the minor son. At this stage, when the trial has not even begun, it cannot be held that the allegations in the FIR are false, fabricated and concocted, they argued.
The high court, while being conscious of the minor child observed, that a statement under Section 164 CrPC is recorded by the concerned magistrate after satisfying himself that the victim child is capable of giving a statement and understanding the statement he is making before the magistrate.
Observing that the petitioner would have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses including the victim and lead evidence before the trial court, the high court held that the truthfulness of the victim’s statement and other witnesses will be “appreciated on the touchstone of cross-examination”. Quashing the petition would amount to “throttling the judicial proceedings and denying opportunity to get justice to the victim child,” it observed.
Dismissing the quashing petition, the high court held that the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that allegations are baseless and false appears to be premature, in light of the minor boy’s statement and the fact that chargesheet had been filed in the case.