The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against a husband, his family members, and relatives, holding that the allegations were vague, unsupported by material evidence, and appeared to be part of a larger pattern of acrimonious matrimonial litigation.
The bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also expressed concern over the increasing trend of filing false and vexatious criminal cases, particularly under POCSO and other serious penal provisions, as tools of harassment in matrimonial disputes.
The case arose from a complaint filed by the wife against her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law. The complainant alleged that her minor daughter had been sexually assaulted by her father and uncle and had also been subjected to abuse, intimidation, and physical assault by other family members. Based on these allegations, offences under Sections 65, 74, 115, 351, and 352 of the BNS as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act were invoked.
The parties had a long history of matrimonial discord and litigation spanning more than a decade. Multiple criminal cases, domestic violence proceedings, dowry-related allegations, divorce proceedings, and cross-cases had already been instituted by both sides before the filing of the present complaint.
Examining the allegations against the father and uncle of the minor girl, the Supreme Court observed that the complaint merely stated that the prosecutrix had been raped without disclosing any specific details regarding the alleged incidents.
The Court noted that there was no mention of dates, circumstances, sequence of events, or any factual particulars showing how the alleged acts fell within the statutory definition of rape or penetrative sexual assault under the BNS and the POCSO Act. It held that a bare allegation that a person committed rape, without supporting factual particulars or prima facie material, cannot by itself justify criminal prosecution for such a grave offence.
The Bench emphasized that while a complaint need not be an encyclopaedia, it cannot contain serious accusations devoid of foundational facts. The Court observed that criminal law cannot be set in motion merely on the basis of blanket allegations unsupported by specific material.
A significant factor that weighed with the Court was the striking similarity between the complaint, the complainant’s statement, and the prosecutrix’s statement.
The Bench observed that all three narratives were virtually identical in content, sequence, tone, and wording. According to the Court, this was not merely a case of consistency but rather a “verbatim reproduction” suggestive of tutoring.
The Court pointed out that after leaving the appellants’ residence, the prosecutrix had remained in the complainant’s custody for several months before the complaint and statements were recorded, thereby providing sufficient opportunity for influence or tutoring. The Court concluded that the possibility of the prosecutrix being coached by the complainant and her family could not be ignored in the facts of the case.
The Court also found the complete absence of medical evidence significant.
Particularly regarding allegations that the prosecutrix had been subjected to sexual assault and that a hammer handle had allegedly been inserted into her private parts, the Court noted that no medical examination report, injury report, or hospital record had been produced.
The Bench observed that such allegations, if true, would ordinarily require immediate medical attention and treatment. Yet there was no evidence that the prosecutrix was ever medically examined after the alleged incidents. The Court held that in the peculiar facts of the case, the absence of medical evidence became fatal because the allegations were otherwise unsupported by independent corroborative material.
Referring to the Justice J.S. Verma Committee Report, the Court reiterated the importance of timely medical examination in sexual assault cases, both for the victim’s welfare and for preservation of forensic evidence.
The Supreme Court also examined allegations against the grandmother and aunt of the prosecutrix.
It found that the complaint merely alleged that they abused, assaulted, and threatened the prosecutrix without specifying what exactly was said or done. The Court observed that criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS requires specific threats causing alarm, while hurt under Section 115 BNS requires material showing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity.
The complaint, according to the Court, failed to provide particulars necessary to satisfy the essential ingredients of these offences. Mere bald assertions without supporting facts could not justify continuation of criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court relied upon the landmark judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and held that the case squarely fell within the categories warranting quashing of criminal proceedings.
The Bench observed that the allegations were inherently improbable, unsupported by evidence, and appeared to have been instituted with mala fide intent. It therefore concluded that permitting the prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Beyond the facts of the case, the judgment contains extensive observations regarding what the Court described as a disturbing rise in vexatious litigation.
The Bench stated that courts are increasingly witnessing instances where parties involved in matrimonial disputes resort to criminal complaints as a means of pressurizing the other side, securing favourable settlements, or exacting revenge. According to the Court, genuine cases often get overshadowed by a growing number of false and frivolous proceedings.
The Court referred to what it termed a “matrimonial bouquet” of litigation, where estranged spouses invoke multiple legal provisions simultaneously, including allegations of dowry harassment, cruelty, domestic violence, and other criminal offences against several members of the opposite family. It observed that such complaints frequently contain vague, sweeping, and omnibus allegations unsupported by evidence.
Case Details
Case Title: Ishwar Chand Sharma & Others Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh & Another
Citation: JURISHOUR-1468-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.18035 of 2025
Date: 29/05/2026
