Supreme Court sets aside Allahabad High Court order diluting POCSO summoning, holding alleged acts show attempt and not mere preparation

Case Name: In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues (with connected Criminal Appeals)
Citation: 2026 INSC 165
Date of Judgment/Order: 10 February 2026
Bench: Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. V. Anjaria

Held: The Supreme Court held that where allegations disclose execution of mens rea after preparation and overt acts moving towards commission of rape, the case prima facie constitutes an “attempt” and not mere “preparation”, and therefore a High Court cannot dilute a POCSO trial court’s summoning order by substituting lesser charges on an erroneous understanding of the attempt-preparation distinction; the Court accordingly set aside the Allahabad High Court’s judgment which had modified summons from attempt to commit rape to lesser offences, restored the original summoning order under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act, and clarified that all observations are prima facie and shall not influence the trial.

Summary: The matter arose after a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, in revision, modified summons issued by the Special Judge (POCSO), Kasganj in a complaint involving a minor victim, converting the basis of summoning from attempt to commit rape under Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 POCSO to lesser provisions, prompting a suo motu writ petition in the Supreme Court on a letter by an NGO and connected appeals by other organisations and the complainant-mother; the Supreme Court analysed the settled distinction between “preparation” and “attempt” and noted that the allegations, as recorded even in the High Court’s own narration, described a pre-determined intent coupled with overt acts and interruption only due to third-party intervention, which in law crosses the threshold from preparation into attempt, making the High Court’s dilution of charges legally unsustainable; separately, noting recurring concerns about insensitive judicial reasoning in sexual offence cases, the Court took up broader systemic issues and initiated an institutional process to develop guidance aimed at inculcating sensitivity and compassion in judicial approach and court processes in cases involving sexual offences and other vulnerable victims or witnesses.

Decision: The connected criminal appeals were allowed and the Allahabad High Court judgment dated 17.03.2025 was set aside, the original summoning order of the Special Judge (POCSO), Kasganj was restored and the trial was directed to proceed on that basis; on the broader issue, the Supreme Court requested the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, through its Director Justice Aniruddha Bose (former Judge of the Supreme Court), to constitute an expert committee chaired by him to prepare a comprehensive report and draft guidelines on developing sensitivity and compassion in judicial approach and processes in sexual offence and similarly vulnerable cases, with directions on simple, accessible language and consideration of linguistic diversity, and disposed of the suo motu writ petition with pending applications also disposed of.