The delay in filing the FIR in cases of sexual assault should not be equated with other cases, and technical grounds cannot be cited as a reason for quashing the investigation at the trial stage in a heinous crime like sexual harassment of a minor.

JUDGMENT :

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) :

1. Both the criminal revisions filed by the two accused persons praying of quashing of FIR and subsequent investigation against them were heard analogously and this Court delivers the following composite judgment as hereunder.

2. The Petitioner, Shreekant Sharma is a senior citizen aged about 63 years and a priest by profession. His nephew, Narayan Sharma, (co-accused person) is also a priest. Narayan Sharma was married to one Jyoti Sharma, who is the opposite party in this case, in May 2001 and from the said wedlock, two sons named Nimish Sharma and Nikunj Sharma, and a daughter, the alleged victim were born. There is a history of criminal proceedings and pending litigation between the co-accused person and the Opposite Party and several First Information Reports and written complaints have been lodged by both the co-accused person and his wife against each other and there is a pendency of Matrimonial Suit No. 277/21 filed under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of Learned Additional District Judge at Sealdah pursuant to Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.11.20 entered into by both the parties.

3. Between April to October 2020, several written complaints were made and FIRs were lodged by both the parties and their family members and associates alleging threat and intimidation and various other implications throughout this duration. Thereafter, both Narayan and Jyoti Sharma decided to resolve the differences and settle the matters outside Court. Accordingly, they executed a Memorandum of Understanding on 18.11.2020 whereby the terms of such settlement were reduced into writing and it was decided between the parties that Narayan Sharma would transfer a flat/apartment in Rajarhat to Jyoti Sharma (which was completed) and Jyoti Sharma started residing there with the children. In addition to the same, both the parties would jointly prefer an application for mutual divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 and Narayan Sharma would also give a sum of 50,00,000/-to Jyoti Sharma, out of which they had paid Rs. 15,00,000/-. The said Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was acted upon and an application under 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 was also filed along with a copy of the said MoU. However, during the pendency of the said application, it is alleged that Narayan Sharma received more demands of money from Jyoti Sharma. The said matter was diarized on 17.06.2021 by Narayan Sharma's brother, Abhishek Sharma.

4. Among all these written complaints, the one which is the most important and the issue, in this case, was made on 13.10.2020 by one Raghu Sharma, the brother of the co-accused Narayan Sharma against Arvind Mishra, alleging that he had received threats through WhatsApp messages to implicate him under the POCSO Act by Arvind Mishra, who was an associate of the wife of the co-accused, Jyoti Sharma.

5. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2, Jyoti Sharma, lodged a complaint with Techno City Police Station on 14.06.21, alleging that her daughter, the alleged victim, disclosed to her that on two occasions, i.e., once in August 2018, during Rakshabandhan, and the other time after Diwali in 2019, on the pretext of performing puja, the accused Shreekant Sharma touched her inappropriately and violated her with his fingers. The present Petitioner flashed his private parts and asked the girl child to touch them. The child felt traumatized, scared, exploited and was allegedly threatened by the present Petitioner, Shreekant Sharma who told her not to disclose the incident to anyone. The victim immediately informed her father, but her father blamed her for being a liar and did not believe her. The victim did not dare to tell anything to her mother or elder brothers immediately after the occurrence. Sometimes, in June 2021, her mother proposed to her and her brothers that they might return to her father’s house to stay and in such an event they might not face financial ha