‘R’ v. ‘E’ & Anr. (Rajeev Giri v. Ekta Singh)

Supreme Court of India   •   24 September 2026   •   2026 INSC 1049; Civil Appeal No. 13119 of 2026, arising out of SLP(C) No. 1092/2024, with connected criminal appeals and contempt proceedings
Case Summary
The Supreme Court laid down safeguards for POCSO allegations against a parent or family member living with a child when a matrimonial dispute exists. An investigating officer should not mechanically or hastily arrest the accused merely because a POCSO FIR has been registered. Where the prescribed threshold is met, a child and adolescent psychiatry or clinical psychology expert should ordinarily assist the investigation before coercive action, subject to a limited exception where the material is palpable and reasons are recorded in writing. A POCSO FIR alone cannot automatically defeat a parent's custody or guardianship claim; courts must assess the material and circumstances case by case.
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Area of Law: POCSO / Family Law / Child Custody — Matrimonial Disputes, POCSO Allegations, Arrest Safeguards & Welfare of Child
Citation: 2026 INSC 1049; Civil Appeal No. 13119 of 2026, arising out of SLP(C) No. 1092/2024, with connected criminal appeals and contempt proceedings
Date: 24 September 2026

Legal Issue

How courts and investigating agencies should address POCSO allegations against a parent or family member where serious matrimonial or custody litigation exists; whether registration of a POCSO FIR should itself determine a parent's custody or guardianship claim; what safeguards should govern arrest and coercive action; whether psychiatric or psychological experts should assist investigations; what safeguards apply to private complaints under Section 33 of the POCSO Act; and what arrangement serves the child's welfare and best interests.

Brief Facts

‘R’ and ‘E’ married in 2011, and their daughter, anonymised as ‘M’, was born in 2015. Serious matrimonial differences led to prolonged divorce and custody litigation. The Family Court in Bengaluru directed that custody be handed to the father, and that determination was sustained through further proceedings. Custody was handed to him on 7 June 2023. Amid continuing conflict, the mother lodged FIR No. 76/2024 on 28 March 2024 against the father and members of his family, alleging offences including Section 10 of the POCSO Act, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. On 7 April 2026, the Supreme Court transferred the investigation to the CBI and directed constitution of a multidisciplinary committee including psychiatric and psychological expertise. The CBI examined witnesses, documents, CCTV footage, medical material and an integrated psychiatric and psychological evaluation. Its cumulative assessment concluded that the material did not make out the allegations and the matter was not fit for prosecution. The Supreme Court accepted the material and held that continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

Held / Decision

The Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 76/2024, later renumbered as CBI Case RC0352026S0003, including proceedings against father ‘R’ and the concerned family members. Legal custody of child ‘M’ was to rest with father ‘R’. Because the child had been in the mother's physical custody since March 2024, the Court did not order an abrupt transfer. It instead directed a professionally assisted reintegration process under the supervision of the Family Court, Bengaluru, with assistance from CBI officers and NIMHANS experts. The Court also prescribed safeguards for a defined category of POCSO cases involving matrimonial disputes, to be strictly followed and circulated to criminal courts and police stations throughout India.

Important Observations

1. Safeguards Apply Only When Two Threshold Conditions Exist
The Supreme Court carefully limited the special safeguards to cases satisfying both of the following conditions:

First: the alleged POCSO offence is attributed to a parent or another family member living under the same roof as the child victim.
Second: a matrimonial dispute of some form exists between the child's parents, whether or not that dispute is already before a court.
The police officer receiving the complaint must verify the existence of such a matrimonial dispute.

2. POCSO's Protective Purpose Must Not Be Diluted
The Court expressly cautioned that its safeguards should not be understood as weakening the POCSO Act.
POCSO remains a comprehensive child-protection legislation intended to protect children against sexual offences. The safeguards seek to balance that objective against the possibility of irreparable harm from unwarranted coercive action in the specific matrimonial-dispute context identified by the Court.

3. No Hasty or Mechanical Arrest
Once the two threshold conditions exist, registration of an FIR should not automatically be followed by immediate arrest.
The investigating officer must comply with the requirements governing arrest under Section 35 BNSS, including the statutory requirement of having the requisite “reason to believe.” The Court reiterated that the existence of a legal power to arrest does not mean arrest should follow mechanically in every case.

4. Expert Child Psychiatric/Psychological Evaluation
In cases satisfying the threshold conditions, the Investigating Officer or Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) should engage an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry/clinical psychology.
The expert is to be engaged in consultation with the District Child Protection Unit (DCPU) or, where the DCPU is unavailable, the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA).
The expert should ordinarily come from the register maintained by the DCPU under the POCSO Rules, 2020. Where no suitable expert is available on the register, an appropriately qualified expert may be engaged from outside it.
Only in exceptional cases where the material is palpable may the investigating officer dispense with expert involvement, and reasons must be recorded in writing.

5. Evaluation Must Be Independent
Where a qualified support person has been appointed by the Child Welfare Committee, that person may accompany the child during the psychological or psychiatric evaluation.
The Court emphasised that the evaluation must remain independent and free from influence by either the disgruntled parent or the investigating authorities.

6. Safeguards Also Apply to Private POCSO Complaints
The Court separately dealt with private complaints under Section 33 of the POCSO Act.
Where the two threshold conditions exist, the Special Court must carefully apply its mind before taking cognizance and issuing summons. Summoning an accused is not a routine exercise.
The Special Court should ordinarily obtain assistance from an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry/clinical psychology and consider the expert's report along with the other relevant circumstances before deciding whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed.
Again, expert assistance may be dispensed with in an exceptional case where the material is palpable, but the Court must record reasons in writing.

7. Remand and Bail Courts Must Examine Compliance
Courts dealing with remand and bail in cases satisfying the threshold conditions should examine whether the investigating officer complied with the applicable statutory safeguards before taking coercive action.
This includes examining whether the strained relationship between the parents and the circumstances in which the complaint arose were duly considered when deciding whether arrest was warranted.

8. Mere POCSO FIR Cannot Automatically Defeat Custody Rights
This is one of the judgment's most important propositions for family-law practice.
Where POCSO allegations arise during guardianship or custody litigation, mere registration of the POCSO case cannot itself justify an inference that the allegations are true or automatically defeat the accused parent's claim for custody or guardianship.
The Family Court or other concerned court must consider the relevant material, including material collected by the investigating agency, and form a case-specific prima facie assessment. The Supreme Court declined to prescribe a rigid formula because custody disputes necessarily involve varying factual circumstances.

9. Best Interest of the Child Remains Paramount
The Court reiterated that child-custody adjudication is ultimately governed by the welfare and best interests of the child.
On the facts before it, the Court concluded that the child's welfare would be best served by legal custody and guardianship remaining with father ‘R’. However, because physical custody had remained with the mother for a considerable period, the Court directed a structured reintegration rather than an abrupt transfer.

10. Nationwide Application and Circulation
For FIR-based cases, the safeguards apply to investigations that were still underway on 24 September 2026.
For private complaints under Section 33 POCSO, they apply where summons had not already been issued as of that date.
The Supreme Court directed that the judgment be sent to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts, for onward transmission to criminal courts, and to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, for transmission to every police station. Particular attention was directed to paragraphs 47–77 of the judgment.

Full Headnote

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Matrimonial Disputes — Child Custody — Allegations against Parent/Family Member — Arrest — Section 35 BNSS — Expert Psychological/Psychiatric Evaluation — Safeguards: Supreme Court prescribed safeguards for POCSO proceedings where two threshold conditions coexist: (i) the alleged offence is attributed to a parent or family member living under the same roof as the child victim; and (ii) a matrimonial dispute exists between the child's parents, whether or not pending before a court.

Where these conditions are satisfied, investigating authorities should not resort to hasty or mechanical arrest merely upon registration of an FIR. Requirements governing arrest under Section 35 BNSS must be scrupulously observed. Investigating Officer/SJPU shall ordinarily engage an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry/clinical psychology, in consultation with the DCPU or DLSA where appropriate, to aid the investigation. Expert involvement may be dispensed with in exceptional cases where the material is palpable, for reasons recorded in writing.

Private Complaint — Section 33 POCSO: Where the threshold conditions exist and the Special Court is considering whether cognizance should be taken and summons issued, expert psychiatric/psychological evaluation of the child should ordinarily be obtained. The Special Court must consider the evaluation along with other relevant circumstances before determining whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed. Summoning cannot be treated as a routine exercise.

Custody and Guardianship: Mere registration of a POCSO case against a parent does not by itself establish the truth of the allegation and cannot automatically operate to defeat that parent's legitimate claim for custody or guardianship. The concerned court must examine the relevant material, including investigation material, and reach a prima facie assessment on a case-by-case basis. No rigid formula can govern every custody dispute.

Facts of Present Case: Following an extensive CBI investigation, including witness examination, CCTV analysis and psychiatric/psychological evaluation, the Court held that continuation of FIR No. 76/2024 would amount to abuse of process and quashed the proceedings. Legal custody of child ‘M’ was directed to remain with father ‘R’, with physical reintegration to be undertaken through the Family Court with assistance from an expert committee.

Safeguards directed to apply to pending FIR investigations and, in the case of private complaints, to matters where summons had not been issued as of the date of judgment. Judgment directed to be circulated through High Courts to criminal courts and through State/UT Chief Secretaries to police stations across India.

Legal Significance

The judgment addresses the risk of POCSO allegations arising amid matrimonial and custody conflict by requiring a careful, child-centred investigation and discouraging mechanical arrest. It separates the fact of FIR registration from the custody determination, emphasizes case-by-case assessment and expert assistance where prescribed conditions are met, and uses professionally supported reintegration to protect the child's welfare.

View Original Judgment
Disclaimer: This case summary and headnote are provided for informational and educational purposes. Readers should refer to the original judgment for the complete text and authoritative legal position.