POCSO Act gender neutral, says Karnataka HC; rejects woman’s plea to quash sexual assault case

Bengaluru, Aug 18 (PTI) The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by a 52-year-old woman seeking to quash a sexual assault case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that the legislation is gender neutral and applies equally to men and women.

The case pertains to allegations that the petitioner, a neighbour of the complainant, sexually assaulted a 13-year-old boy in May 2020.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, while pronouncing the order, observed that “the POCSO Act, being a progressive enactment, is intended to safeguard the sanctity of childhood. It is rooted in gender neutrality, with its beneficent object being the protection of children, irrespective of sex.” The court clarified that though certain provisions of the law may use gendered language, the purpose and preamble of the Act make it inclusive. Sections 3 and 5, which define sexual assault and aggravated assault, form the basis for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6.

These provisions, the judge said, clearly apply to both male and female offenders.

Rejecting the contention that there was a four-year delay in filing the complaint, the court said such delay cannot be grounds for quashing proceedings in cases involving child victims.

The judge also dismissed arguments about “psychological impossibility” and lack of potency testing, holding that such claims do not hold ground under modern jurisprudence.

The court further rejected the notion that women can only be passive participants in sexual offences, terming the argument as “archaic.” “The jurisprudence of present times embraces the lived realities of victims and does not allow stereotypes to cloud legal scrutiny,” the order stated.

The FIR in the case was registered in June 2024, following which the police filed a chargesheet.

The woman, represented by Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha, had argued that the complaint was motivated by financial disputes between the families and that the case was fabricated to avoid repayment of money.

During earlier hearings, the court had noted the “peculiar circumstances” of the case, but in its final order, it found no merit in the petitioner’s submissions. It also permitted in-camera proceedings due to the sensitive nature of the allegations. PTI COR JR ROH