Background
The appellant is the paternal aunt of twins born to her brother, who divorced their mother by mutual consent on 05.09.2023. The children were placed in the father’s custody, with visitation rights granted to the mother. The mother subsequently lodged an FIR (No. 100/2024, Khadki Police Station, Pune) alleging that the appellant had sexually molested her son, invoking Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
The Court noted a striking coincidence: this FIR was filed just hours after the father lodged an identical complaint against the maternal uncle, alleging an offence against the boy’s twin sister. No such allegation had been raised at the time of divorce or at any point before the FIR was filed on 17.03.2024.

Procedural History
• A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had earlier stayed proceedings, finding the complaint prima facie without substance — particularly since the victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement did not corroborate the alleged assault.
• At the final hearing, a different Division Bench, without examining the FIS or the Section 164 statement, directed the appellant to face trial merely because cross-complaints existed between the parties.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that it is unfortunately common for in-laws to be dragged into matrimonial disputes, with children often used as instruments to vilify one side. It held that the High Court erred in directing trial without engaging with material already on record — material that an earlier bench had examined and found insufficient to sustain the complaint.