Does the expert-evaluation safeguard apply where a Special Court decides whether to take cognizance of a private complaint under the POCSO Act?
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice K. V. Viswanathan
The same expert-evaluation safeguard applies where a Special Court decides whether to take cognizance of a private POCSO complaint where a matrimonial dispute exists.
Yes. Under the POCSO Act, Section 33 empowers the Special Court to take cognizance of a complaint of facts directly, without a police report first. Where the threshold conditions are met, the Special Court shall, before deciding whether to take cognizance and issue process, likewise involve a child and adolescent psychiatry or clinical psychology expert to evaluate the child, and take that report into consideration along with other relevant circumstances.
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s.22 — s.33 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s.35 — False allegations in matrimonial disputes — Arrest safeguard — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s.35 BNSS — Arrest safeguard — Expert evaluation — Held: Where an offence under the POCSO Act is alleged against a parent living with the child where a matrimonial dispute exists between the parents, the investigating officer must engage a child psychiatry or psychology expert to evaluate the child before forming "reason to believe" for arrest under Section 35 of the BNSS. (¶48, 60) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s.33 — Special Court cognizance — Same safeguard — Held further: The same safeguard applies where a Special Court is deciding whether to take cognizance of a private complaint under Section 33 of the POCSO Act in like circumstances. (¶64, 70) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Custody proceedings — Registration not proof — Held further: Mere registration of a case under the POCSO Act does not by itself prove the allegation true or defeat a parent's legitimate claim to custody; the court must independently assess whether the allegation is baseless. FIR quashed as an abuse of process; legal custody of the child to rest with Father-'R'. (¶76, 79)
Headnote
You've used your free headnotes this month
The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.
Create my free accountOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of 'R' v. 'E' & Anr — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India