Few situations test the criminal justice system like a sexual offence allegation made by one parent against the other while a custody case is pending. The charge, if true, demands the swiftest protection of the child; if false, it weaponises the most serious statute on the books to reverse an adverse custody finding. On 24 September 2026, in Rajeev Giri v. Ekta Singh, 2026 INSC 1049, the Supreme Court confronted the problem directly: it quashed the FIR, restored the father’s custody entitlement, and — most significantly for practice — laid down procedural safeguards for every future case where POCSO allegations arise between litigating parents.
The litigation history
The parties married in 2011; their child was born in 2015. After the marriage broke down in April 2018, the mother left with the child, and the father filed guardianship and divorce proceedings. The Family Court granted custody to the father, and the High Court affirmed that view in January 2023, granting the mother visitation. The custody arrangement then travelled to the Supreme Court.
It was at that stage — in March 2024, with the apex court itself in seisin of the custody question — that the mother lodged an FIR alleging that the father had committed sexual offences against the child under the POCSO Act, 2012. Given the setting, the Supreme Court took the unusual course of entrusting the investigation to the CBI, assisted by a specialised committee that included psychiatrists and psychologists alongside police officers.
Why the FIR was quashed
The judgment of Justice K.V. Viswanathan rests on the convergence of four strands of material, each pointing away from the accusation:
On that record the Court held that the allegations were not made out and the matter was not fit for prosecution, and quashed the FIR as re-registered with the CBI. To close the circle of litigation, an earlier cross-FIR of 2018 filed by the father against the mother was also quashed, and legal custody of the child was vested in the father, with physical reintegration to be worked out by the Family Court under the oversight of an expert committee.
The safeguards: what changes for future cases
The enduring significance of the decision lies in the framework it lays down for a defined category of cases — where a POCSO offence is alleged against a parent or family member living with the child, and a matrimonial dispute is pending between the parents. In that category:
The Court was careful to hold the balance. The judgment acknowledges the growing misuse of POCSO allegations as leverage in matrimonial disputes, while insisting that the safeguard of expert evaluation is an intermediary filter, not an obstacle course for genuine victims. Nothing in the decision slows the prosecution of a case which survives that filter.
What this means in practice
For advocates on both sides of a custody dispute, the decision alters the terrain. A parent facing a sudden POCSO allegation mid-litigation now has a concrete procedural anchor: arrest without prior expert engagement, in this category of cases, is contrary to the Supreme Court’s direction. Equally, a parent who genuinely apprehends abuse should understand that an expert evaluation early in the process strengthens, rather than delays, a true case — contradictions and coached narratives are precisely what such evaluations are designed to detect.
For the trial courts of Delhi, where custody, divorce and criminal proceedings frequently run in parallel, the judgment supplies a checklist that will be cited at the first remand hearing and at the summoning stage of every private complaint in this category. It joins a line of authority in which the Supreme Court has sought to protect the integrity of special statutes by policing their deployment in collateral battles.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this judgment dilute the POCSO Act?
No. The Court was explicit that genuine cases must proceed with full rigour. The safeguards apply to a narrow category — allegations against a parent or family member living with the child, made while a matrimonial or custody dispute is pending between the parents — and they add an expert evaluation layer before coercive action, not a bar on investigation or prosecution.
Are the expert reports binding on the police or the court?
No. The Supreme Court clarified that expert psychological evaluations aid the discretion of the investigating officer and the Special Court but do not bind either. They are a structured input designed to prevent both wrongful arrests and the abandonment of genuine complaints.
What material persuaded the Court to quash this particular FIR?
The child’s accounts were contradictory, CCTV footage contradicted the allegations, psychiatric and psychological evaluation disclosed no trauma consistent with the accusations, and there was no corroborating independent evidence. The Court concluded the allegations were not made out and the matter was not fit for prosecution.
Does an accused parent lose custody rights while such an FIR is pending?
Not automatically. In this case the Supreme Court vested legal custody in the father even while dealing with the FIR, and directed a supervised, expert-assisted reintegration of physical custody through the Family Court. Each case, however, turns on its own interim orders and the child’s welfare.