New Delhi, Jun 11: Calling it “shocking”, the Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to quash the criminal proceedings against a former judicial officer accused of sexually abusing his minor daughter.
“The daughter is making an allegation. It is a shocking case. He is a judicial officer and these are serious allegations of incest. This is shocking. And the daughter has made the allegations. She must have been scarred for life. How can this be a case for quashing?" a bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan asked.
The bench, as a result, dismissed his appeal against a Bombay High Court passed on April 15, 2025, upholding the framing of charges by the trial court.
The bench did not agree to the submissions that the judge was framed due to the long-standing matrimonial dispute with his estranged wife and the case was a “counter blast” and lodged after his father died by suicide allegedly after being harassed by the complainant's side.
“We don’t want to get into all this. Suicide may be because of the son’s (judge) actions,” Justice Manmohan remarked. The counsel for the former judge said, “This man’s entire life has been ruined starting with his matrimonial problems."
“His father committed suicide. The complaint was made much later and was never mentioned during earlier legal proceedings,” the lawyer added. The bench, however, noted the serious allegations and charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against him.
The case stems from an FIR registered on January 21, 2019, in Bhandara, Maharashtra after the alleged incidents of abuse taking place between May 2014 and 2018. It came on record that a chargesheet had been filed but formal charges were yet to be framed in the case.
The former judge was charged under Section 354 of IPC for assaulting a woman with intent to outrage her modesty apart from Sections 7, 8, 9(l), 9(n), and 10 of the POCSO Act, relating to various forms of sexual assault, including aggravated and incestuous abuse.
The plea alleged the complaint was made with malicious intent and the FIR was registered four years -- coinciding with an ongoing custody dispute and matrimonial litigation -- after the alleged events.
The plea said the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act was improperly invoked, as no foundational facts had yet been established. With top court's refusal to quash the charges, the former judge is expected to stand trial in a special POCSO court.
(Disclaimer: Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
