‘R’ Vs ‘E’ & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
When a POCSO Complaint Becomes a Weapon in a Custody Battle: Supreme Court Lays Down Safeguards
SEO Title: POCSO FIR in Matrimonial Custody Dispute Quashed; Supreme Court Issues Safeguards
Cases Discussed
- Rosy Jacob vs. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC 840 — relied upon for the principle that the welfare of the minor is the primary consideration in custody proceedings.
- Geddam Jhansi and Anr. vs. State of Telangana and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 — discussed on the need for circumspection before criminalising matrimonial and domestic disputes through unsupported allegations.
- Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2025) 3 SCC 756 — discussed regarding the impact of acrimonious matrimonial disputes and criminal proceedings on children.
- Ishwar Chand Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1004 — discussed regarding misuse of POCSO allegations as a weapon in matrimonial and other disputes.
- N. Chandramohan vs. State and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 34383 — considered in the Court’s discussion concerning POCSO allegations arising in the background of matrimonial disputes.
- Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 260 — relied upon in relation to the principle that arrest cannot be made routinely merely because it is lawful to do so.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr.,
- , (2014) 8 SCC 273 — relied upon regarding statutory safeguards and necessity governing arrest.
- Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51 — discussed in relation to arrest and personal-liberty safeguards.
- Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr.,(2026) 7 SCC 311 — discussed in continuation of the principles governing arrest and compliance with statutory safeguards.
******
‘R’ v. ‘E’ & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 13119 of 2026 and connected matters, 2026 INSC 1049, judgment dated 24 September 2026
A child caught between two estranged parents needs protection, not another reason to fear either parent. In a judgment arising from a bitter custody dispute in Bengaluru, the Supreme Court examined a POCSO allegation against the father, the effect of that allegation on custody proceedings, and the precautions authorities must take when such complaints arise amid matrimonial conflict.
The Court quashed the POCSO FIR against the father and directed that the child’s legal custody would rest with him. Since the child had been living with the mother, however, it ordered a supervised process of reintegration, rather than an abrupt transfer of physical custody. The judgment also lays down safeguards for a defined category of POCSO cases. Those safeguards require care in assessing allegations while preserving the law’s central purpose: the protection and well-being of children.
The parents, identified as ‘R’ and ‘E’ to protect their privacy, married in 2011. Their child, ‘M’, was born in 2015. The relationship deteriorated, and the mother left the matrimonial home with the child in April 2018. What followed was prolonged litigation involving guardianship, custody and criminal allegations. Against that background, a POCSO FIR was registered against the father in March 2024.
After examining the material, including a CBI investigation, the Supreme Court concluded that the 2024 FIR had been lodged to create a basis for returning custody to the mother. It quashed that FIR. It also brought the connected litigation addressed in the judgment to a close, including an earlier criminal case arising from the parents’ dispute.
The Court did not treat the custody consequence as a simple matter of handing the child over immediately. Although it vested legal custody in the father, it recognised that physical custody had been with the mother since March 2024. It therefore sent the matter to the Family Court in Bengaluru for a carefully managed reintegration, assisted by a committee that includes CBI officers and specialists from NIMHANS. The committee may recommend interim arrangements and visitation during the transition; after reintegration, the Family Court is to make an appropriate visitation order for the mother.
The wider importance of the judgment lies in its directions on how similar allegations should be handled. The safeguards apply only where both conditions exist: a POCSO offence is alleged against a parent or another family member living under the same roof as the child, and there is a matrimonial dispute between the child’s parents, whether or not that dispute is already before a court. The police officer receiving the complaint must verify the existence of that dispute.
For cases arising from an FIR, the Court cautioned investigating officers against acting in haste or making an immediate arrest merely because an allegation has been made. The officer must comply with the statutory requirements governing arrest. In the defined circumstances, the investigating officer or Special Juvenile Police Unit must ordinarily engage an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry or clinical psychology to assist the investigation. Where the material is palpable, the officer may dispense with that step in an exceptional case, but must record reasons in writing.
The expert’s evaluation must be conducted independently and without pressuring or repeatedly troubling the child. Its report is an aid to the investigating officer, not a decision that binds the police. The officer must consider it alongside the other evidence when deciding whether arrest is justified. The report also cannot, by itself, determine whether a charge sheet or closure report should be filed.
The Court prescribed a corresponding safeguard for a private complaint before a POCSO Special Court. Where the same two threshold conditions are met, the Special Court must apply its mind before proceeding against the accused. It should ordinarily obtain an expert evaluation and consider that report with the other circumstances before deciding whether there are sufficient grounds to issue summons. Here too, an exceptional decision to dispense with the expert must be supported by written reasons.
Custody courts have a separate responsibility. The Supreme Court said that registration of a POCSO case alone does not establish that its allegation is true and should not automatically defeat an accused parent’s claim to custody or guardianship. The court dealing with custody must examine the relevant material and reach its own case-specific view, with the child’s interests at the centre of the decision.
This judgment must be read with its careful limits. The Supreme Court did not suggest that a POCSO complaint made during a matrimonial dispute is necessarily false. It expressly recognised the seriousness of child sexual abuse and directed that the safeguards must not weaken the POCSO Act. Its concern was that an unsupported accusation should neither trigger an unwarranted arrest nor decide a custody case by itself. The directions also extend to investigations still underway on the date of the judgment and, for private complaints, to cases in which summons had not yet been issued.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. To be caught in the crossfire between warring parents would undoubtedly be a painful experience for any child. When the acrimony, however, is escalated to the level of unjustifiably attributing sexual assault of the child by one parent, the matter acquires a different dimension altogether. Quite apart from the trauma that the minor child is put through in the process, the accusation can damage the very fabric of the parent-child relationship and the resultant wound is bound to leave an indelible scar in the minds of both. This is independent of the hurt, humiliation and the public opprobrium the accused parent faces, even long after exoneration from the charges. What is alarming is that this tendency of making false accusations is on the rise. Instances are not infrequent where gullible parties are misguided by their advisors, including in some cases by recalcitrant legal professionals, who in their pursuit of the motto of “win at any cost”, end up fuelling the fire. The only objective is to tie up the accused spouse and their family members in knots with the foisted criminal case and ensure that they are kept busy with the Court process for a considerable period. Very often, the enraged parent who is engulfed by anger and blinded by ego falls prey to these machinations, oblivious to the consequences that may ensue. Some of the above attributes are present in this case. We have, in this judgment, endeavoured not just to find a solution to the case at hand but have also ventured to lay down certain safeguards, to check this growing menace.
2. Leave granted. Let the names of the parties in the cause title, except the first alphabet, be redacted.
BRIEF FACTS:-
3. The Husband, ‘R’ and Wife, ‘E’, who are the appellant and respondent in the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.1092 of 2024, got married in the year 2011. This was a second marriage for both of them. There were certain misunderstandings soon after the marriage; however, they appeared to have been sorted out since a child ‘M’ was born in the year 2015.
4. Serious misunderstandings arose between the parties since 2017, and ultimately, on 02.04.2018, the Wife -‘E’ left the matrimonial home with the child ‘M’. The wife-‘E’ has a case that she was driven out of the house, after being assaulted. A criminal case was indeed registered, which was closed.
5. On 24.04.2018, the Husband-‘R’ filed Guardianship Petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in G & WC No. 128/2018 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. A First Information Report (for short ‘the FIR’), bearing No. 165/2018, dated 05.06.2018, also came to be filed by the Husband-‘R’ against the Wife-‘E’ and one ‘S’ at Jayanagar Sub-Division, Bangalore City, Bangalore, under Sections 420, 497, 109, 504, 506, 418 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 75 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JJ Act’) wherein certain allegations were made.
6. Later, on 07.07.2018, the Husband-‘R’, filed a Petition under Section 13(1)(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Court of Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, bearing MC No. 3654/2018, seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery. Pending the Guardianship Petition, certain visitation arrangements were made.
7. On 03.03.2022, the IVth Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, allowed the petition filed by the Husband-‘R’ and directed the Wife-‘E’ to handover the custody of the minor child ‘M’, then aged 7 years, to the custody of the Husband-‘R’, within one month. Further order was made, permanently restraining ‘E’ from removing the child from the jurisdiction of the Court till the child was handed over to Husband-‘R’.
8. Being aggrieved, Wife -‘E’ filed MFA No. 2786 of 2022 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The High Court, vide order dated 31.01.2023, while dismissing the appeal, made certain visitation arrangements.
9. Against the said judgment dated 31.01.2023, Wife -‘E’ preferred a Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4869/2023 before this Court.
10. In the meantime, on 25.03.2023, the Court of Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, allowed the petition for divorce filed by the Husband-‘R’ and dissolved the marriage between the parties.
11. Reverting back to the proceedings in the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4869 of 2023 pertaining to the custody of child ‘M’, the matter was taken up by this Court on 29.03.2023. The Mother-‘E’ did not appear before the Court on 29.03.2023 though she was prosecuting the case in person. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
12. A Miscellaneous Application, being MA (Diary) No. 13822/2023 was filed by the Mother-‘E’ to recall the order dated 29.03.2023, was dismissed on 10.04.2023. A SLP (C) Diary No.19821/2023 filed by Child ‘M’, through her Mother ‘E’, was also dismissed.
13. On 11.04.2023, the Father-‘R’ filed a Writ Petition before the High Court being W.P.H.C. No. 30 of 2023, for a direction to ‘E’ to produce ‘M’. Non-bailable warrants (NBWs) were issued by the High Court on 27.04.2023 against ‘E’.
14. On 07.06.2023, the Division Bench of the High Court, allowed the W.P.H.C. No. 30 of 2023 filed by the Father-‘R’ and the directions were given to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, to ensure that the concerned Station House Officer (SHO), hands over the custody of ‘M’ to ‘R’ within 24 hours of the receipt of the order of the High Court.
15. It is not in dispute that on 07.06.2023 itself, custody was indeed handed over to ‘R’, the father of the Child ‘M’. Multiple proceedings including criminal proceedings were filed by ‘E’ against ‘R’ and the family members soon after the handing over. It was alleged that Father-‘R’ was committing violence against ‘M’. It is not disputed that these proceedings are all, as on date, closed with the surviving criminal proceeding being the one arising out of FIR No.76/2024 with which we are concerned in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1092/2024.
16. No doubt, as far as Mother-‘E’ is concerned, there is a criminal proceeding arising out of FIR No. 165 of 2018 dated 05.06.2018, which we have dealt with later in the judgment.
17. Thereafter, Mother-‘E’ filed a Contempt Petition being CCC No.586/2023, before the High Court for violation of directions given in MFA No. 2786/2022, vide judgment dated 31.03.2023. The High Court, vide order dated 14.12.2023, modified certain visitation arrangements in favour of the Mother ‘E’-Respondent No. 1 herein.
18. Against the said Order dated 14.12.2023, the Father filed the present Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) being No 1092/2024. While the said petition was pending before this Court, an FIR dated 28.03.2024, came to be lodged by Mother-‘E’, bearing No. 76/2024 registered at Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, Sub-Division -Jayanagar, District Bangalore City wherein startling allegations on Father-‘R’ and his family members for having committed offences punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) read with Section 75 of the JJ Act and Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC against ‘M’, were levelled.
19. The statements of the child ‘M’ were also recorded. The child was subjected to medical examination at KIMS Hospital & Research Centre, Bengaluru.
20. This Court, on 22.07.2024, on being informed about the FIR No. 76 of 2024, directed the investigation to be handed over to a Senior Woman Police Officer of the concerned Police Station, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP). Further, the directions were given that the child be examined by a Panel consisting of three Doctors of Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute.
21. The case was again taken up on 01.10.2024 and after interacting with the parties and the child, the criminal proceedings filed by both the parties were stayed and the child was permitted to reside with the Mother-‘E’ in Bengaluru. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on 16.10.2025 in the Committee Room of this Court and after interaction with the child ‘M’, it was directed that for the present, the child shall continue to stay with Mother-‘E’ and continued the stay, as ordered earlier.
22. This matter was heard over a period of time, namely, on 08.09.2025, 23.09.2025, 16.10.2025, 17.12.2025 and 29.01.2026. Thereafter, when the case was taken up on 07.04.2026, this Court directed that the investigation in FIR No. 76/2024, should be taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
23. The CBI gave the Final Report with its covering letter dated 13.07.2026, which we shall deal with in this judgment a little later. The matter was taken on 17.07.2026 when the CBI Report was submitted to us. On that day, judgment was reserved. We also directed parties to surrender their passports, including the passport of minor daughter, to the Registry of this Court within a period of five days. On 29.07.2026, the parties reported to us that the passports have been duly surrendered.
24. At the outset, we must place on record our deep appreciation for the remarkable efforts put in by the CBI in the present matter. Pursuant to our order dated 07.04.2026, a Committee was constituted under the leadership of Shri K. Sivasubramani, DIG, CBI, Hyderabad, Shri Vinayak Varma, SP, CBI and Ms. Shipa D., SP, CBI, as part of the police officers’ team. Further, the Committee inducted Dr. Lakshmi Sravanti Tanuku, Assistant Professor of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru (NIMHANS) and Dr. Anamika Sahu, Assistant Professor of the Department of Clinical Psychology, NIMHANS.
25. The Report is very logically structured and has 8 (Eight) Chapters.
26. Dealing with the background of the case, the factual aspects which we have set out hereinabove, have been encapsulated. Thereafter, the investigation done by the Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station has been discussed.
27. The medical examination carried out, along with the physiological examination of the victim, at the time when the matter was in the hands of the Jayaprakash Nagar Police, have also been set out. The Doctors, who carried out the said examination have been examined. Other crucial witnesses like the Class Teacher, the Tuition Teacher, the School Counsellor, the housemaid, co-employees of ‘R’ and ‘E’, neighbours have also been examined and the statements have been set out. The CCTV footage procured from the house of Father-‘R’ during the time when ‘M’ was there between 07.06.2023 and 24.03.2024 have been analysed, forensically examined and meticulously discussed in the Report.
28. ‘R’ and ‘E’ have been examined, the family members have been examined; the allegations against Father-‘R’ and each other family members have been threadbare discussed in the background of the events. The litigation history including the multiple complaints registered by both the parties have been referred to. The context of matrimonial discord has been appreciated.
29. The most important aspect of the Report is the psychological/psychiatric evaluation.
30. We have, apart from the summary of the integrated psychiatric and psychological evaluation report in child forensic context, which is available in the report of the CBI, also perused the full report minutely.
31. The psychological/psychiatric evaluation has been analysed under disclosure history, witness statements, CCTV footage/video recordings, independent psychiatric and psychological analysis of the victim and forensic interview of the victim. The Report recorded that no signs of anxiety/trauma consistent with the allegations were found in the victim and considered, inter alia, the child’s perceptions and relationships and the possible influence of prolonged parental conflict, ongoing custody litigation, repeated discussions of the allegations, multiple psychological consultations and continued exposure to family narratives.
32. Not stopping there, the CBI, in detail, discusses the legal provisions and the judgments of this Court; the inconsistencies in the statements have been analysed; the analysis of the CCTV footage with the analysis of the statements of the witnesses have been set out separately and the opinion of experts has been discussed.
33. Applying the legal principles, the CBI concluded that the testimony did not appear reliable or trustworthy and that the allegations were not made out against the accused and the matter was not fit for prosecution.
34. Having elaborately considered the facts and minutely evaluated the exhaustive Report submitted by the CBI, we are of the opinion that interest of justice requires that FIR No. 76/2024, re-numbered as CBI Case RC0352026S0003, as registered by the CBI, ACB, ought not to be proceeded with any further, as doing so would be a gross abuse of process. We are satisfied that on material, the proceedings have to be quashed forthwith. Hence, we quash FIR No. 76/2024, originally registered with Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, Jayanagar Sub-Division, Bengaluru, re-numbered as CBI Case RC0352026S0003 for offences punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, Section 75 of the JJ Act as well as Sections 323, 504, 506, and 34 of the IPC against Father-‘R’ and three other family members.
BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD:-
35. It is not disputed that the custody battle that was started in 2018 resulted in Father-‘R’ succeeding right up to this Court. The present proceedings arose only on the registration of FIR being No. 76/2024 dated 28.03.2024. That aspect has been discussed hereinabove and we have concluded by quashing the said proceedings. We are fully convinced that keeping the overall facts and circumstances, applying the long list of precedents on the welfare of the child principle, evolved by this Court from Rosy Jacob vs. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC 840 onwards, the welfare of ‘M’ will be best served if she is in the custody and guardianship of Father-‘R’.
36. We have also borne-in-mind the education, maintenance and other considerations including health of the child ‘M’. We find no good ground to differ from the final order passed by the Guardianship Court which has been sustained right up to this Court. If at all, the findings of the Inquiry Report of the CBI, have only reinforced the fact that the interest of the child would be best subserved if she is in the custody and guardianship of Father-‘R’.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ABUSE OF LEGAL PROVISIONS:-
37. We opened the judgment observing an alarming trend that is on the rise where one parent misuses the legal provisions to gain strategic legal advantage. This Court and some High Courts have already taken judicial notice of this unfortunate but a chronic syndrome.
38. In Geddam Jhansi and Anr. vs. State of Telangana and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263, highlighting the propensity of parties to exaggerate allegations in matrimonial disputes, this Court considered the serious consequences of invoking the criminal process in domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible supporting material.
39. In Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2025) 3 SCC 756, highlighting how in matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children, this Court discussed the consequences of acrimonious criminal proceedings between spouses.
40. In Ishwar Chand Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1004, directly addressing the issue as to how the POCSO Act is used as a weapon to wreak vengeance and advising the legal fraternity to refrain parties from filing frivolous complaints, this Court examined the trend of serious allegations being invoked in matrimonial and other disputes.
41. The High Courts, across the country, have also been cognizant of this malaise.
42. In N. Chandramohan vs. State and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 34383, the Court considered allegations under the POCSO Act arising in a matrimonial setting.
SAFEGUARDS AND THE POCSO ACT
43. The Court thereafter considered the need to formulate safeguards while ensuring that the object and purpose of the POCSO Act are not diluted.
44. The POCSO Act is a special legislation intended to protect children from sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and to provide child-friendly mechanisms for reporting, recording evidence, investigation and speedy trial.
45. The seriousness of genuine allegations of child sexual abuse cannot be understated.
46. At the same time, the Court considered the need for safeguards in the limited category of cases identified in the judgment.
47. The safeguards are attracted where two conditions coexist: the allegation under the POCSO Act is against a parent or another family member residing under the same roof as the child, and there is a matrimonial dispute between the parents of the child.
48. The matrimonial dispute need not necessarily be pending before a Court.
49. The police officer receiving the information must verify whether such matrimonial dispute exists.
50. The existence of matrimonial discord does not mean that the POCSO complaint is false.
51. The investigating authority must continue to keep the protection and welfare of the child at the centre of the investigation.
52. The statutory requirements governing investigation under the POCSO Act must continue to be observed.
53. In the category of cases identified by the Court, investigating officers should not act in haste merely because a serious allegation has been made.
54. Arrest cannot be automatic.
55. The investigating officer must comply with the statutory requirements governing arrest and must independently assess whether arrest is necessary.
56. The principles governing arrest and personal liberty, including those recognised in Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P and Ors., Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr., must be borne in mind.
57. The safeguards against unnecessary arrest do not prevent the police from taking appropriate action where arrest is justified in accordance with law.
58. In the defined category of cases, the investigating officer or Special Juvenile Police Unit must ordinarily obtain assistance from an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry or clinical psychology.
59. The expert should possess appropriate professional expertise to evaluate the child in the particular circumstances.
60. The evaluation must be independent.
61. The child should not be subjected to pressure, coercion or unnecessary repeated questioning in the course of the expert evaluation.
62. The process must remain child-sensitive and consistent with the protective object of the POCSO Act.
63. In an exceptional case where the material is palpable and expert assistance is considered unnecessary, the investigating officer may dispense with such assistance.
64. Reasons for dispensing with expert assistance must be recorded in writing.
65. The expert report is intended to assist the investigating officer.
66. The expert does not replace the investigating officer and the report does not bind the police.
67. The investigating officer must evaluate the expert report along with all other evidence and circumstances collected during investigation.
68. The expert report by itself cannot determine whether a charge sheet or closure report should be filed.
69. Nor can the report by itself determine whether arrest is justified.
70. In the case of a private complaint before a Special Court under the POCSO Act, the same threshold circumstances require corresponding caution.
71. The Special Court must apply its mind to the material before proceeding against the accused.
72. Ordinarily, an expert evaluation should be obtained and considered along with the other material before deciding whether sufficient grounds exist for issuing summons.
73. Where the Special Court considers expert evaluation unnecessary in an exceptional case, reasons must be recorded in writing.
74. The safeguards are intended to facilitate a careful assessment of allegations and not to weaken genuine prosecutions under the POCSO Act.
75. Registration of a POCSO case by itself cannot be treated by a custody court as proof that the allegation is true.
76. A custody or guardianship court must examine the relevant material independently and decide the issue on the facts of the particular case.
77. The welfare and best interests of the child must remain paramount.
CUSTODY AND REINTEGRATION
78. In view of the findings recorded in the judgment, legal custody and guardianship of ‘M’ shall rest with Father-‘R’. Considering that physical custody of ‘M’ had remained with Mother-‘E’, the Court directed that the transition should not take place abruptly.
79. Considering the sensitivity of the matter, we, for the limited purpose of re-integrating the physical custody of ‘M’ with ‘R’, remit the matter back to Family Court. The process of re-integration will be done by the IVth Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. In the process, the Family Court will be advised by a Committee of Experts, consisting of:-
I. Shri Vinayak Varma, SP, CBI
II. Ms. Shilpa D., SP, CBI;
III. Dr. Lakshmi Sravanti Tanuku, Assistant Professor of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, NIMHANS; and
IV. Dr. Anamika Sahu, Assistant Professor of the Department of Clinical Psychology, NIMHANS.
80. The Committee, in the first sitting, which may be held at a very early date, will decide with whom the interim custody of ‘M’ should be, pending the reintegration. The Committee will, keeping in mind the observations in the judgment and the report of the CBI, be at liberty to take a call on whether the interim physical custody should be with the Child Welfare Committee or any other neutral place or even with the mother. At this stage also, visitation arrangements can be made for ‘R’ and ‘E’, wherever necessary.
81. Their report on interim custody may be given to the Family Court.
82. After the final integration of ‘M’ with ‘R’ is also done, the Family Court shall make an appropriate order for visitation to ‘E’.
83. Mother-‘E’ shall fully cooperate with the process. However, we make it clear that any disobedience of the orders or attempt to disobey will result in serious consequences.
84. The passports deposited with the registry of this Court by both parties shall be transmitted to the IVth Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, who may return the same to the parties after the process of reintegration of ‘M’ with ‘R’ is complete.
85. We direct that the parties herein, along with the child ‘M’, to report at 10:00 A.M. in the Chambers of IVth Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, along with a copy of this judgment on 28.09.2026.
86. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to IVth Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. Let a copy of this judgment be also sent to Shri Vinayak Varma, SP, CBI, Ms. Shilpa D., SP, CBI, Dr. Lakshmi Sravanti Tanuku, Assistant Professor of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, NIMHANS and Dr. Anamika Sahu, Assistant Professor of the Department of Clinical Psychology, NIMHANS so as to enable them to be also present at 10:00 A.M. before the Family Court.
Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7710 /2024, SLP (Crl.) No. 7711/2024 and SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10197-10198/2024:
87. These are filed by Mother-’E’ & Father-‘R’ challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No. 1565/2021 connected with Criminal Petition No. 8562/2021 and Criminal Petition No. 10029/2021. ‘E’ along with one ‘S’ sought quashment of chargesheet bearing CC No. 25342/2018 arising out of Crime No. 165/2018 dated 05.06.2018 pending before the XXX, ACMM Court at Bangalore for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 109, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC along with Sections 75 and 87 of the JJ Act and all further investigation and proceedings. The High Court, while quashing the chargesheet for offences under Sections 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 34 IPC, refused to quash the proceedings for the offences under Sections 75 and 87 of the JJ Act. The High Court also allowed the petition of Father-‘R’, namely, Criminal Petition No. 10029 of 2021 and directed further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The Mother-‘E’ has challenged the order by filing two special leave petitions, one challenging the refusal to quash offences under Sections 75 and 87 of the JJ Act and second against the conduct of further investigation. ‘R’, the complainant in Crime No. 165 of 2018, is aggrieved by the quashment of offences under the Sections referred to above. ‘S’, who was a petitioner before the High Court, has not filed any Special Leave Petition. We have seen the gravamen of the allegations. Crime No. 165 of 2018 was registered on 05.06.2018 when the acrimony between the parties was at its peak. Today, much water has flown under the bridge, and we have while disposing of the civil appeal arising out of special leave petition (C) No. 1092 of 2024 made orders, keeping in mind the best interest of the child. Hence, we direct that no further action need be taken pursuant to FIR No. 165/2018 dated 05.06.2018 and the said FIR No. 165 2018 and further proceedings thereto, including the charge sheet, shall stand quashed.
88. The petition filed by Mother-‘E’, being GWC No. 194/2024, will stand terminated. We have terminated this fresh guardianship proceedings, because the foundation of such petition is the lodgement of FIR No. 76/2024. With the said FIR itself having been quashed, there is no basis to continue this fresh guardianship petition.
89. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 208 OF 2024
90. This Contempt Petition is filed by Father-‘R’ in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1092 of 2024. The petitioner alleges breach of order dated 22.01.2024 passed by this Court which had stayed the visitation rights granted to the mother by the orders of the High Court dated 14.12.2023 and 05.01.2024 and continued the visitation rights granted by the judgment dated 31.01.2023. Considering the order that we have made in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1092 of 2024, to give a quietus to all acrimonious litigation in the larger interest of the child, we close this contempt petition. The contempt petition also stands disposed of. No further orders are needed therein. There is a further prayer to direct withdrawal of Crime No. 76 of 2024. That prayer also does not survive in view of the fact that we have quashed the proceedings. We do not propose to proceed further in the matter.
DIRECTIONS VIS-À-VIS SAFEGUARDS:-
91. The safeguards set out in this judgment will be strictly observed by the concerned authorities. However, as clarified, they will operate in the case of proceedings instituted on first information reports, to investigations which are underway on the date of this judgment. Similarly, insofar as private complaints under Section 33 are concerned, the safeguards will apply to cases where summons have not already been issued, as on the date of this judgment.
92. A copy of this judgment be sent to Registrar Generals of the High Courts, with a request to place the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justices of the High Courts. The High Courts shall transmit a copy of this judgment to every criminal court after drawing particular attention to para Nos. 47-77 hereinabove.
93. We further direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all the States & Union Territories, for onward transmission to every police station after drawing particular attention to para Nos. 47-77 hereinabove.
