In a significant judgment clarifying the scope of punitive measures against false complainants, the Kerala High Court has ruled that a person cannot be prosecuted under Section 22 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act if the original false complaint pertained only to "sexual harassment" under Section 12.
The Court emphasized that the law specifically limits the punishment for false complaints to cases involving more severe forms of sexual assault. This decision provides much-needed clarity on the boundary between reporting crimes and the legal consequences of providing false information under the POCSO framework.
The matter reached the High Court through a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The petitioners were the original complainants in a case (Crime No. 41/2020) registered at the Kavaratti Police Station in Lakshadweep.
In that initial case, the petitioners had alleged that an individual committed an offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. Section 12 deals with the punishment for "sexual harassment" of a child—an offence that does not involve physical contact but covers actions intended to outrage the modesty of a child.
However, after a thorough investigation, the police concluded that the information provided by the petitioners was false and that no such offence had been committed. Consequently, the police dropped the charges against the original accused. Instead, they turned the tables and arrayed the original complainants as accused persons in a new case (S.C.No. 10/2022) before the Sessions Court in Kavarathy. They were charged under Section 22 of the POCSO Act, which punishes individuals for making false complaints or providing false information.
The core of the legal debate rested on the wording of Section 22 of the POCSO Act. The counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that even if the court were to assume the complaint was false, the law does not allow for a prosecution under Section 22 in this specific scenario.
The defense highlighted that the original complaint was filed under Section 12 (Sexual Harassment). However, Section 22, by its very text, only penalizes false reports related to specific, more serious sections of the Act.
To settle the matter, Justice C. Pratheep Kumar examined the literal meaning of Section 22(1). For the sake of clarity for general readers, the section states:
"Any person, who makes false complaint or provides false information against any person, in respect of an offence committed under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9, solely with the intention to humiliate, extort or threaten or defame him, shall be punished..."
The Court noted that the legislature intentionally listed only four specific sections in this provision:
- Section 3: Penetrative Sexual Assault
- Section 5: Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault
- Section 7: Sexual Assault
- Section 9: Aggravated Sexual Assault
The High Court observed that Section 12 (Sexual Harassment) is notably absent from the list provided in Section 22.
The Court explained that in criminal law, statutes must be interpreted strictly. If the Parliament had intended to punish individuals for making false complaints regarding "sexual harassment," Section 12 would have been included alongside Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9.