Sexual Offence FIR Cannot Be Quashed Solely Due To Delay In Complaint: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered for the offence of outraging a woman's modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that delay in filing the complaint and non-recording of the victim's statement under Section 164(5A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot, by themselves, justify termination of a criminal prosecution at the threshold.

Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale passed the order while rejecting a plea filed by Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker, who had sought quashing of FIR No.139 of 2019 registered at Samata Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate.

According to the prosecution, the complainant had been employed as a cook at the petitioner's residence in Kandivali. She alleged that on March 10, 2019, while washing utensils in the kitchen, the petitioner approached her from behind, pulled her saree and touched her private parts. The FIR was eventually lodged on April 2, 2019 under Section 354 IPC.

Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani, appearing for the petitioner along with advocates Nikhil Ghate and Pushpvijay Kanoji, argued that the FIR was an afterthought and had been lodged after an unexplained delay of 21 days. It was contended that CCTV footage from the housing society contradicted the complainant's version and showed that she remained in the flat only for a brief period. The petitioner also claimed that he had discontinued the complainant's services due to dissatisfaction with her cooking and that the complaint was filed after he refused alleged monetary demands.

The petitioner further argued that the investigating agency had failed to record the complainant's statement under Section 164(5A) CrPC and had also not examined certain defence witnesses, thereby rendering the investigation unfair.

Opposing the plea, advocate Dilip Shukla for the complainant submitted that the FIR contained a clear and specific allegation of sexual misconduct. He argued that issues relating to delay, CCTV footage and the petitioner's version constituted matters of defence that could only be tested during trial. The State was represented by APP Y.M. Nakhwa.

Rejecting the petitioner's contentions, the Court held that the allegations in the FIR, if accepted at face value, clearly disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 354 IPC.

"A bare reading of the F.I.R. would prima facie indicate that the offence of section 354 of IPC is made out," the Court observed.

The High Court emphasised that delay in reporting offences against women cannot be viewed through a rigid formula. It noted that victims often face social stigma, emotional distress and hesitation before approaching law enforcement authorities.

"Only because a delay of a few days is not explained, cannot be a ground to throw out a criminal prosecution," the Court said, adding that in offences involving women, prosecutions should not be discarded solely on the basis of delay unless mala fides or personal vendetta are apparent on the face of the record.

On the issue of Section 164(5A) CrPC, the Court acknowledged the importance of such statements in aiding investigation and preserving the victim's account. However, it held that the provision functions as a protective mechanism for victims and its non-compliance does not automatically invalidate a prosecution.

"The non recording of Section 164(5A) statement cannot be the sole ground for rejecting a criminal prosecution which is otherwise prima facie made out," the judgment stated.

The Court also declined to examine the CCTV footage and other materials relied upon by the petitioner, observing that such contentions amounted to defence pleas requiring appreciation of evidence. It reiterated that while exercising powers to quash proceedings, courts cannot conduct a "mini trial" or assess disputed questions of fact.

Finding that the complainant had made a clear and categorical allegation attracting Section 354 IPC, the Court held that the petitioner's arguments were matters for trial and not grounds for quashing the case. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Date of Judgment: June 10, 2026

Bench: Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale