High Court drops Pocso case, fines girl, then orders MacBook purchase for her

The Bombay High Court has quashed a case filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against a 52-year-old businessman from Pune, while imposing a cost of Rs 1.5 lakh on the petitioner after she deposed that the complaint had been lodged due to a misunderstanding. In a rare direction, the judge ordered the High Court Registry to use the amount to purchase the latest version of a MacBook or another suitable laptop for the girl.

Justice RR Bhonsale also directed that the 17-year-old girl be consulted regarding her preference and that the device be tailored to her academic needs to support her further studies.

The legal dispute began after allegations that the girl’s maternal uncle had made inappropriate advances towards her. According to the initial complaint, the alleged harassment occurred while he was driving her to school for her Class 11 examinations, during which he purportedly asked if he could be her boyfriend and later continued to send her persistent messages.

The situation escalated in August 2024 when, during a trip to buy groceries, the uncle reportedly told her "I love you," asked for a kiss, and touched her breast. The girl initially confided in a school counsellor and she later informed her grandmother, leading to the registration of the FIR in Mumbai.

During the court proceedings, the narrative shifted. Advocate Shahzad Naqvi, representing the uncle, submitted that the FIR was the result of a "misunderstanding" that had since been resolved.

This sentiment was agreed by the girl and her parents, who were present in court to reiterate that they no longer wished to pursue criminal charges. They maintained that the family had reconciled and that continuing the litigation would be unnecessary.

Additional Public Prosecutor PN Dabholkar, appearing for Maharashtra, acknowledged that no productive purpose would be served by continuing the criminal trial given the victim's stance. However, Dabholkar argued that because the judicial machinery had been set in motion over such serious allegations, the petitioner should be required to pay costs.

The bench agreed, specifying that any funds remaining from the 1.5 lakh after the laptop purchase should be transferred to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund.

- Ends

Tune In