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.

Justice Pratheep Kumar noted:

"On a perusal of the above provision, it is clear that, only if the information furnished is about the commission of an offence punishable under sections 3, 5, 7 or 9, of the above Act, the same will amount to an offence under Section 22 of the POCSO Act."

The Court further pointed out that since the petitioners' original complaint only alleged an offence under Section 12, the basic legal requirement to trigger Section 22 was not met. Therefore, even if the prosecution's claim—that the complaint was false—was true, it still wouldn't constitute a crime under Section 22.

The High Court held that allowing the trial to continue against the petitioners would be a waste of judicial time and an "abuse of the process of the Court." When the facts of a case, even if taken at face value, do not satisfy the legal definition of the crime charged, the High Court has the power to step in and stop the proceedings to prevent injustice.

Invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Kerala High Court allowed the petition and quashed all criminal proceedings against the petitioners pending before the Sessions Court (Special Court for POCSO Act), Kavarathy.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder of the "Rule of Lenity" and strict interpretation in criminal statutes. While the POCSO Act is a stringent piece of legislation designed to protect children, the Court has ensured that the provisions meant to check false complaints are not overextended beyond what the law explicitly permits.

For legal practitioners and the public, the takeaway is clear: while filing a false complaint is a serious matter, a prosecution under the specific "false complaint" provision of the POCSO Act (Section 22) is reserved only for allegations involving sexual assault and penetrative assault, not for cases of sexual harassment.

Case Details:

Case Number: Crl. M.C. No. 5884 of 2022
Case Title: [Names Redacted] v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Anr.
Bench: Justice C. Pratheep Kumar
Date of Order: January 21, 2026
Citation: 2026:KER:5035