The Bombay High Court recently quashed a section 354 (outraging modesty) case against a man who molested a housekeeper, holding that a First Information Report (FIR) registered in sexual offenses cannot be quashed simply on the grounds of delay because the victim takes time to gather the courage to lodge the complaint fearing the social stigma and the "uncomfortable" questions she would be subjected to.

Judge Ranjitsinha Bhonsale, a single judge, declined to dismiss the FIR filed against Nandakumar Panicker, a resident of Mumbai's Kandivali neighborhood at the time of the offense but originally from Kerala.

Panicker was accused of asking the woman "if her husband was weak" before grabbing her from behind, pulling her saree, and pressing her breast on March 10, 2019, while she was cleaning the dishes. In the evening, she told her husband that she had somehow escaped his grasp and left his apartment. However, the accused insisted that the court quash the FIR due to the 21-day delay in filing it against him and the lack of a valid cause.

"In these situations, there may be a variety of causes for the delay. In many cases, the complainant may take some time to muster the guts to register a complaint because they fear awkward inquiries and social shame. In the June 10 ruling, Justice Bhonsale stated that a criminal prosecution cannot be dismissed just because a few-day delay is unexplained.

"It can't be a straight jacket recipe, in my opinion. The delay must be interpreted and taken into account in the facts and circumstances surrounding the offence in cases such as the current one under Section 354 of the IPC, sexual offences, any other offence under the POCSO Act, or even an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. Unfortunately, many families in a traditional community like ours find it very difficult to start even a legitimate criminal case when such offenses are involved. In my opinion, a criminal prosecution cannot be dismissed based solely on delay in such cases. Justice Bhonsale emphasized that the delay must be extraordinarily long and must take the surrounding circumstances into account.

The judge stated that the reasonableness of the delay will rely on the specifics of each case, including the type and seriousness of the accusations and the surrounding circumstances.The judge noted, "In my opinion, the criminal prosecution should not be dismissed on the basis of an inexplicable delay in cases pertaining to offenses against women and similar cases unless the delay is attributed to some mala fides, personal vengeance, or vendetta that is prima facie made out and writ large on the record."

The judge also took note of the accused's claim that the FIR cannot stand since the investigating officer did not follow the law's mandate by failing to record the victim's statement in accordance with section 164(5A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The accused's cited provision, the judge pointed out, does not address the "effect of non-recording" of the statement.

The judge stated that a criminal prosecution that is otherwise prima facie made out cannot be rejected only on the basis that the section 164(5A) statement was not recorded.
Consequently, the judge dismissed the motion to quash the FIR, ruling that both the prosecution and the victim had successfully established a prima facie case against the victim.

Case Title: Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 1297 of 2021)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 279