The Bombay High Court has held that delay in lodging a complaint cannot, by itself, be a ground to quash criminal proceedings in cases involving offences against women, observing that in a traditional society like ours, social stigma and fear often make it difficult for victims and their families to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 354 IPC.

It observed that CCTV footage relied upon by the accused, showing the complainant entering and leaving the premises within a short span of time, could not by itself establish that the alleged offence was impossible. The Court held that CCTV material can be considered at the stage of quashing proceedings only when it demonstrates a complete impossibility of the occurrence and rules out every possibility of the alleged incident. Since the footage did not conclusively negate the allegations, the Court held that the accused’s reliance on CCTV timing was a matter of defence to be examined during trial and not a ground for quashing the FIR.

Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale observed, “…In a traditional society like ours, unfortunately many families find it exceedingly and extremely difficult to initiate even a genuine criminal prosecution when such nature of offences are involved. In my view, in such matters delay alone cannot be a ground to quash a criminal prosecution. The delay is required to be exceptionally long and has to be considered with the surrounding circumstances. Whether delay is reasonably explained will depend on the facts of each case. The reasonableness of the delay will depend on the nature and severity of the allegations and the attending circumstances”.

“…In my opinion, cases relating to the offences against women and similar cases, the criminal prosecution ought not to be thrown out on the sole ground of unexplained delay unless the delay is attributed to some mala fides, personal vengeance or vendetta which is prima facie made out and writ large on the record”, the Bench further observed.

Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani appeared for the petitioner Y. M.Nakhwa, APP appeared for the respondent.

The observation came while hearing a petition filed by the accused seeking quashing of proceedings arising from an FIR registered at Samata Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, alleging that the accused had outraged the modesty of a domestic worker. It was alleged that while the victim was working at the accused’s residence, he approached her from behind, pulled her saree and touched her private parts.

The original Complainant used to work with a bureau by name Book My Bai Bureau, Malad, Mumbai which provided employment opportunities for household work.

The Court noted that the FIR in the case was lodged 21 days after the alleged incident. However, it held that such delay cannot automatically invalidate prosecution, as the reasons behind the delay must be examined in the context of the nature of allegations and surrounding circumstances.

The Court further held that whether delay is reasonable or not depends upon factors such as the severity of allegations, social circumstances, and the conduct of the parties.

The Court also held that non-recording of the victim’s statement under Section 164(5A) CrPC cannot, by itself, invalidate a prosecution. The Court observed that the provision is a protective safeguard intended to ensure a voluntary and fear-free narration of facts, but its non-compliance cannot become the sole ground to reject a case where the allegations otherwise prima facie disclose an offence.

“…I am of the considered view that, non recording of the 164 (5A) statement under the CrPC does not vitiate a criminal prosecution as one of the objects of recording the statement is to assist the investigation and get further clarity of facts for the investigation. It therefore can be rightly stated that, the statement under Section 164(5A) of the CrPC is in aid and for the furtherance of an investigation. Only because statement under 164(5A) is not recorded it cannot be said that, the investigation is unjust, unfair or has not proceeded in the right direction”, the Bench said.

Rejecting the accused’s contention that the delay, CCTV footage, and other circumstances created doubt, the Court held that these were matters of defence to be tested during trial and could not be examined in a petition seeking quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

“…Though, there is a slight/minor difference in the timing as mentioned in the F.I.R. and as indicated in the C.C.T.V. footage, the same is not sufficient to draw the inference that no incident at all took place. A C.C.T.V. footage, drawn from a independent third party source, indicating the impossibility of the occurrence of a incident, may be considered in a quashing petition, only if it indicates a total impossibility that the incident could have taken place or it negates every possibility of the incident having taken place and brings the case within the categories 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the categories mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 355…”, the Bench noted.

The Court reiterated that at the stage of quashing proceedings, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial and must only examine whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of an offence.

Case Title: Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:23432-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Counsel a/w Nikhil Ghate, Pushpvijay Kanoji i/b. Haresh Jagtiani, Advocates.

Respondent: Y. M.Nakhwa, APP,. Dilip Shukla i/b. Priya Pandey, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: