New Delhi [India], April 5 : The Saket District Court has directed Delhi Police to register an FIR against a man on whose instance his daughter filed a false POCSO case against his wife, in-laws and other relatives. This matter pertains to the area under Jaitpur police station in the South East District.
"It is high time that such litigants such as the father of the complainant, who misuse the provision of law to their own personal advantage, should be dealt with strictly and strict action is warranted against them," the court said.
It is because of such litigants that even genuine cases are looked upon with suspicious eyes by the general public, the court further said.
Special Judge (POCSO) Anu Agarwal directed the SHO Jaitpur to register the FIR and file a compliance report on April 9.
The court passed the direction while accepting a closure report filed by Delhi Police in a POCSO case. While directing Delhi Police, the court referred to relevant provisions.
The court said that Section 22(1) of the POCSO Act provides the punishment for false complaints or false information.
It provides that any person who makes a false complaint or provides false information against any person in respect of an offence under Section 3, 5, 7 and Section 9, solely with the intention to humiliate, extort, threaten or defame him, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.
Section 22(2) of the POCSO Act provides that where a false complaint has been made by a child, no punishment shall be imposed upon such child, the court clarified.
"In view of the above observations, SHO PS Jaitpur is directed to register FIR under Section 22(1) of the POCSO Act against the father of the complainant. The compliance report shall be sent to this court forthwith," the Special Judge ordered on April 3.
The court said that it is clear from the records that the complainant has filed a false complaint against all the respondents at the instance of her father.
"The complainant went to the extent of dragging all her maternal uncles, maternal grandmother, maternal aunt and advocate in this case," the judge expressed her concern. It is also clear from the record that the sole purpose of filing the false complaint before the police was the ongoing disputes between both sides, the court added.
The court, while giving directions to the police, said, "In the present case, the father of the complainant went ahead in filing a false complaint through the complainant against his in-laws. He did not spare even the advocate, who was representing his wife and in-laws in the cases against him."
"He pressurised the complainant to file a false complaint against her own relatives. At the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant was a minor. She was residing with her father and had no place to go. Even though she was a student of law and she understood the consequences of her acts, in order to save her father, she succumbed to his demand and filed a false complaint," Special Judge Anu Agarwal noted.
The court pointed out that this case is also a classic example that shows how the father of the complainant misused the provision of law not only to settle his personal scores with his relatives but also to deter the advocate, whose only fault was that he was giving his professional services to those relatives.
The court said that advocates are considered to be Officers of the Court. It is crucial that advocates should be able to represent their clients fearlessly, upholding their interests without any fear of harassment, intimidation or implication in false cases.