Chandrakant v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), decided on 23 December 2025

Background and Facts

The Bombay High Court was seized of an application seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The FIR, lodged by a minor girl, alleged sexual harassment and abuse by a co-accused, with the present applicant alleged to have instigated and facilitated such conduct. The factual background revealed prolonged matrimonial and criminal litigation between the applicant and the informant’s mother, which the applicant relied upon to assert mala fides and abuse of process.

The applicant contended that the FIR did not disclose any direct sexual act attributable to him and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to harassment. The State opposed the application, arguing that the victim’s statement disclosed instigation and joint involvement, attracting abetment under the POCSO Act and raising triable issues.

Issues for Consideration

The principal questions before the Court were whether offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act were made out against the applicant, whether prosecution could nonetheless continue for abetment under Section 17, and the extent to which the Court could exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings at the threshold in a case involving allegations by a child.

Findings and Reasoning

Reiterating settled principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court emphasised that such powers must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, particularly in prosecutions under a child-protective statute. The Court held that prior hostility or pending disputes between adults cannot, at the threshold, discredit allegations made by a child victim.

On a careful reading of the FIR and the victim’s statement, the Court found that no allegations constituting sexual assault or sexual harassment, as defined under Sections 7, 8 and 11 of the POCSO Act, were made against the applicant personally. In the absence of averments of physical contact or sexually coloured conduct attributable to him, the Court held that offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the Act were not attracted.

At the same time, the Court drew a clear distinction between direct commission of an offence and abetment. It held that allegations suggesting instigation, encouragement or facilitation of sexual misconduct by another accused were sufficient, at the prima facie stage, to attract Section 17 of the POCSO Act. The veracity of such allegations, the Court noted, could only be tested at trial.

Significantly, while discussing the object and scope of the POCSO Act, the Court referred to ongoing proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning criminalisation of consensual adolescent relationships. The Court noted that, in those proceedings, the Supreme Court has considered submissions and recommendations placed by an Amicus Curiae, including suggestions relating to framing a national sex education policy and broader policy interventions addressing adolescent sexuality. The High Court, however, expressly acknowledged that the matter remains pending before the apex court and that no final directions have yet been issued.

Decision

The High Court partly allowed the application, quashing the FIR only to the extent of offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, while permitting prosecution to continue against the applicant for abetment under Section 17 of the Act and for relevant offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Written by Adv. Aiswarya Krishnan