Unexplained inordinate delay in filing a complaint can lead to quashing of an FIR as it indicates misuse of the judicial process, especially in civil disputes being criminalized.

ORDER :

S.R.Krishna Kumar, J.

In this petition, petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 seek quashing of the impugned complaint and FIR in Crime No.105/2024 registered by the 1^st respondent – Police and for other reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the 1^st respondent – State as well as learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record will indicate that the 2^nd respondent – de facto complainant filed the impugned complaint dated 06.07.2024 registered as an FIR in Crime No.105/2024 against the petitioners – accused Nos. 1 and 2 and one Ravi representing the ITC Ltd., as accused No.3 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 , 465, 467 and 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR and complaint on various grounds including contending that the complaint and FIR in relation to a sale agreement dated 15.02.2008 executed by late Hanumappa, father of 2^nd respondent – complainant in the year 2024 was barred by limitation and huge / enormous and inordinate / unexplained latches and delay. It is contended that there are various litigations between the petitioners, ITC ltd., and the 2^nd respondent and his other family members including filing of civil suits in O.S.No.894/2021 and O.S.No.3099/2022 and the impugned complaint and FIR seeking to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute relating to immovable property deserves to be quashed.

4. The 2^nd respondent has filed his statement of objections and contested the petition and contends that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be apposite to refer to the impugned complaint dated 06.07.2024, which reads as under:-

6. A perusal of the impugned complaint will indicate that the 2^nd respondent specifically alleges that a sale agreement dated 15.02.2008 executed by his father Hanumappa and others in favour of petitioners is a forged, fabricated and fraudulent document in relation to immovable property. The 2^nd respondent – complainant also refers to certain earlier documents during the period 2005 – 06 in relation to immovable property. In this context, it is relevant to state that though the 2^nd respondent’s father Hanumappa is said to have expired in 2017, no complaint was given by the said Hanumappa from 2008 till 2017 during his lifetime. In the entire complaint, there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever offered by the 2^nd respondent – complainant as regards the long, inordinate, enormous, huge and unexplained delay and latches on the part of the 2^nd respondent and / or his father to file the impugned complaint in the year 2024 after more than 16 years, which is sufficient to vitiate the impugned complaint and FIR, which deserve to be quashed.

7. Under identical circumstances, in the case of Chanchalapathy Das vs. State West Bengal & Another – 2023 SCC OnLine SC 650, the Apex Court held as under:-

“14. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable that the Ballygunge Police Station concerned, Kolkata would not have taken any action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the powerful body like ISKCON, Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30-9-2006 written by the Branch Manager of ISKCON, Kolkata. Respondent 2 complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting the said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the court was filed in the year 2009.

15. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by ISKCON, Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they wo