The Allahabad High Court expressed concern on Thursday about the disturbing trend of women filing fraudulent complaints under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) to extract funds from the State. [Ajay Yadav v. State]
The Court noted that such baseless complaints are maliciously aimed at innocent individuals, tarnishing their reputation in society.
“In society, there is a regrettable practice of false FIRs being lodged under the POCSO as well as SC/ST Act against innocent individuals, damaging their reputation in society merely to obtain financial benefits from the State. It is unfortunate that nowadays, many times women are exploiting this as a means to acquire money, a trend that should be curbed,” observed a Bench led by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav.
The Court further emphasized that both the Central and State governments need to be vigilant regarding the increasing instances of sexual violence.
“Given the widespread and steadily escalating occurrence of such sexual violence crimes, it is essential for the State of U.P. and the Union of India to address this serious matter with sensitivity,” the Bench remarked.
The Court was addressing an anticipatory bail plea brought forth by a man accused of rape in 2011.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the First Information Report (FIR) for the case was filed in 2019, approximately 8 years after the alleged incident, without providing any explanation for the delay.
The defense contended that the victim herself admitted to engaging in a consensual physical relationship with the applicant, implying her willing participation. Additionally, the POCSO Act complaint would not be applicable as the woman was above 18 years of age.
The Court observed that prima facie, there exist significant contradictions in the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
“According to the FIR’s account, the applicant engaged in a physical relationship with the victim in 2012, whereas in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim indicated the physical relation occurred in 2013,” the Court noted.
Given this context, without expressing a stance on the case’s merits and considering the nature of the allegations along with the applicant’s background, the Court granted him anticipatory bail.
The Court also stressed the need for legal action against the complainant if the case is proven to be false.
“In such circumstances, it is directed that if it is ascertained that the FIR filed by the victim is false, then proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. shall be initiated against the victim after conducting an inquiry. Furthermore, if any funds have been disbursed by the State to the victim, they should also be recovered from her,” the Court directed.
Advocate Hari Prakash Tiwari represented the applicant, while Advocate Nehal Beg represented the State.”
