‘POCSO Act is gender neutral’; Karnataka High Court refuses to quash sexual assault case against Woman.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:

Ø The Act, being a progressive enactment, is intended to safeguard the sanctity of childhood. It is rooted in gendral neutrality with its beneficient object being the protection of all children, irrespective of sex. The Act is thus, gender neutral.

Ø Sections 3 and 5 which form the foundation for offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, delineate various forms of assault. Although certain provisions may employ gendered pronouns, the preamble and purpose of the Act, render such usage inclusive. Therefore, it is inclusive of both male and female.

Ø The ingredients of Section 4 of the Act dealing with penetrative sexual assault are equally applicable to both men and women. The language of the provision clearly indicates inclusivity.

Ø The ingredients of the offences, the ones punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, are clearly met in the case at hand.

Ø Delay in registration of the crime, in the case at hand, cannot become the reason for quashment of the proceedings, owing to the alleged offence and the age of the victim.

Ø The submissions of psychological impossibility and absence of potency testing, fall flat in the light of modern jurisprudence, noted hereinabove.

Ø The submission that psychological trauma cannot result in an erection would tumble down, in the light of several studies, that psychological trauma does not always prelude physiological or biological reactions, especially ones of coercion and fear.

Ø The submission that, in an intercourse the woman is only a passive participant and a man is an active participant is noted only to be emphatically rejected, as the thought itself is archaic. The jurisprudence of the present times embraces the livid realities of victims and does not allow stereotypes to cloud legal scrutiny.

 In the High Court of Karnataka

(Before M. Nagaprasanna, J.)

Archana Patil  Vs State of Karnataka

Criminal Petition No. 12777 of 2024

Decided on August 18, 2025, 

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 17687

Print Page

Delhi HC: Under which circumstances wife is not entitled to anticipatory bail for causing injury to husband?

The other argument that the accused be granted bail since she has a three month old child to take care of, is also found unmerited in this case, since it is apparent from the record, from the complaint andthe statement of the witnesses recorded so far, prima facie, that accused herein had left her three months old daughter crying besides a badly burnt husband and had locked both of them in the room before fleeing from the spot with his phone. The daughter is being taken care of by the victim/husband and his family. {Para 28}

29. The argument regarding there being no motive and false implication of the accused, to entitle her to anticipatory bail, is also unmerited, since the record reveals that four days prior to the incident in question, i.e. on 27.12.2024, the victim husband had lodged a detailed complaint with the police (running into eight pages) against her wife for cheating, extortion and forced marriage. Pertinently, in the said complaint, the victim had mentioned in detail about the conduct of the accused, including her previous relationships with several men, a child born out of a previous marriage which she had not disclosed to the victim herein, the fact that she had filed several cases under Section 376 of IPC against different persons, etc., which were not in his knowledge. He had also mentioned his apprehension that his wife may kill him with the help of her mother and other family members and he had therefore sought protection from the police.

30. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the applicant herein has failed to join investigation, the recovery of the phone of the victim is to be effected alongwith the need to confront her with the documents mentioned in the complaint, considering also the nature of injuries and the manner in which the injuries were caused, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

  BAIL APPLN. 262/2025

JYOTI ALIAS KITTU Vs  THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Date of Decision: 22.01.2025.

Print Page