New Delhi:
The Saket district court has directed the Delhi Police to register an FIR against an person, on which his daughter filed a false Pocos case against his wife, in -laws and other relatives. The case belongs to the area under the Jetpur police station in the southeast district.
The court said, “It is a high time that such cases such as the father of the complainant, who misuse the provision of the law for their own personal benefits, should be strictly dealt with and strict action is taken against them.”
This is due to such cases that even real matters are seen with suspicious eyes by the general public, the court further said.
Special Judge (POCSO) Anu Aggarwal instructed SHO Jaitur to register an FIR and file a compliance report on 9 April.
Accepting a closed report filed by Delhi Police in a POCSO case, the court passed the direction. Directing the Delhi Police, the court mentioned the relevant provisions.
The court said that Section 22 (1) of the POCSO Act provides punishment for false complaints or false information.
It provides that any person who makes a false complaint or provides wrong information against anyone in relation to crime under Section 3, 5, 7 and Section 9, completely humiliated, removing, threatening, or defaming him completely, with imprisonment for a word, will be punished with imprisonment that can be with six months or penalty or both.
Section 22 (2) of the POCSO Act provides that where a false complaint has been made by a child, no punishment will be given on such a child, the court clarified.
The Special Judge ordered on 3 April, “In view of the above comments, SHO PS Jaitur is directed to register an FIR against the complainant’s father under Section 22 (1) of the POCSO Act. Compliance report will be sent to this court.”
The court said that it is clear from the record that the complainant has filed a false complaint against all the respondents on his father’s example.
The judge expressed his concern, “The complainant went to the extent of pulling all his maternal uncle, grandmother, maternal aunt and lawyer in the case.” The court said that it is also clear from the record that the only purpose of filing a false complaint before the police was dispute between the two sides.
Directing the police, the court said, “In the current case, the complainant’s father went ahead in filing a false complaint against his in -laws through a complainant. He did not leave the advocate, who was representing his wife and in -laws in cases against him.”
“She pressured the complainant to file a false complaint against her own relatives. At the time of filing the complaint, the complainant was a minor. She was living with her father and had no place to go to her. Even though she was a law student and she understood the results of her acts to save her father,”
The court stated that the case is also a classic example showing how the complainant’s father misused the provision of the law not only to stop his personal scores with his relatives but also to stop the advocate, whose only mistake was that he was offering his professional services to those relatives.
The court said that the advocates are considered an officer of the court. It is important that advocates must be able to represent their customers fearlessly, maintaining their interests without any fear of harassment, threats or implications in false cases.
(Except for the headline, the story has not been edited by NDTV employees and is published by a syndicated feed.)