Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has quashed a domestic violence case, observing that the criminal prosecution had been misused as a tool of harassment and that significant delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) indicated malafide intent.

A Single judge bench comprising Justice S. Manu, acknowledged that while delayed FIRs were not inherently invalid, unexplained delays could suggest malicious intent. The court noted, “unexplained delay considered along with other attendant circumstances and relevant facts involved in a particular case bespeak that the criminal prosecution has been misused as a tool of harassment, the court will be vindicated in taking into account the delay as a relevant factor to justify quashing of proceedings.”

The complaint, lodged by the mother-in-law of the petitioner’s daughter, accused the petitioner and her family of trespassing into her residence on December 27, 2015, and assaulting her due to an ongoing family dispute. According to the complainant, the confrontation was triggered by a divorce case filed by her son against the petitioner’s daughter. Although the incident allegedly occurred in December 2015, the FIR was not filed until June 23, 2016, a delay of nearly six months.

The petitioner argued that the case was filed in retaliation amid unresolved marital disputes spanning courts in Kerala and Maharashtra. The delayed FIR, the petitioner claimed, suggested a calculated attempt to harass. It was noted that a prior domestic violence complaint by the complainant in Thrissur had been dismissed in November 2019 due to lack of evidence. The petitioner contended that the current criminal case rehashed those dismissed allegations and should be quashed. Alibi evidence, including toll receipts and bills, was submitted to show the petitioner’s family was in Mumbai for wedding preparations on the date of the alleged incident, making the assault at Thrissur improbable. Additionally, a letter from the complainant’s attorney to the CEO of the petitioner’s children’s employer sought their deportation, alleging “terrorist connections” without basis, indicating intent to damage the family’s reputation. The petitioner also highlighted previous court orders confirming the complainant’s retention of assets, like gold and a vehicle, claiming these moves were aimed at harassment.

The court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,  stated, “the only explanation offered was that the de facto complainant considered it shameful to report the matter to police. I do not think that the said explanation is acceptable.” The court found this explanation unconvincing, noting that the complainant had already initiated legal proceedings against the petitioner in family court and the magistrate’s court.

The court further noted, “it is clear from the facts and circumstances that the de facto complainant who approached the jurisdictional Magistrate's Court with an application under the Domestic Violence Act, approached the police on the basis of same set of allegation much later, after a period of about six months. The lodging of FIR is therefore definitely the result of afterthought. It can be safely assumed that the de facto complainant wanted to strengthen the case filed under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner and other family members by approaching the police and getting a crime registered. Want of a credible explanation for the delay points out the lack of bonafides.”

The court observed that when malice is evident, and the delay in reporting the alleged crime remains unexplained, alongside inherently improbable allegations, it becomes apparent that the criminal justice system has been misused. If it is clear that this misuse stems from a malicious intent to harass the accused out of vengeance or ulterior motives, the High Court can appropriately grant the plea to quash the proceedings.

“It is trite law that delay in lodging the criminal proceedings cannot be considered as a sole ground for quashing the proceedings. However, unexplained delay, when clearly indicates malafides, can be definitely considered as a ground for quashing the proceedings,” the court remarked.

As a result, the court concluded that in this case, the de facto complainant's animosity and the intent to harass the accused were clearly evident, presenting compelling reasons for quashing the proceedings to prevent an abuse of the judicial process.

 

Cause Title: Rema Raghavan v State of Kerala [CRL.MC NO. 1167 OF 2020]