The Saket District Court has directed Delhi Police to register an FIR against a man who allegedly manipulated his minor daughter into filing a false POCSO case against his wife, in-laws, and other relatives. The incident took place within the jurisdiction of the Jaitpur police station in South East Delhi.

Special Judge (POCSO) Anu Agarwal, while passing the order, expressed strong disapproval of the misuse of legal provisions for personal vendetta. “It is high time that such litigants, such as the father of the complainant, who misuse the provision of law for their own personal advantage, are dealt with strictly. Strict action is warranted against them,” the court observed.

The judge further noted that such misuse damages public trust. “Because of such litigants, even genuine cases are looked upon with suspicious eyes by the general public,” the court said.

The order came as the court accepted a closure report filed by the Delhi Police, which found the POCSO complaint to be false. The court referred to Section 22(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which stipulates that anyone who files a false complaint under Sections 3, 5, 7, or 9 of the Act, intending to humiliate, extort, threaten or defame, may face imprisonment up to six months, or a fine, or both.

The court clarified that as per Section 22(2) of the POCSO Act, a child who files a false complaint cannot be punished.

“In view of the above observations, SHO PS Jaitpur is directed to register an FIR under Section 22(1) of the POCSO Act against the father of the complainant,” the judge ordered, instructing the police to submit a compliance report by April 9.

Judge Agarwal emphasized that the complaint, which included accusations against maternal uncles, aunts, grandmother, and even an advocate, was clearly filed under the father's influence. The court noted that the father’s intent was to harass his in-laws amid ongoing family disputes.

“In this case, the father not only falsely implicated his in-laws but also targeted the advocate who was representing them. This advocate was only performing his professional duty, and yet he too was dragged into the complaint,” the court remarked.

The complainant, a minor at the time and a law student living with her father, was reportedly pressured into filing the complaint. Despite understanding the consequences, she gave in to her father's demands, the court observed.

The judge described the case as a "classic example" of how legal provisions can be weaponized to settle personal scores and intimidate professionals.

“Advocates are Officers of the Court and must be allowed to represent clients without fear of harassment or being falsely implicated,” the court stressed, underlining the importance of protecting the independence and dignity of legal professionals.