IMPORTANT POINT
Long delays in lodging FIRs, if unexplained, can lead to quashment of criminal proceedings due to doubts about the prosecution's credibility.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking for the following reliefs:

“1. To call for the original of Annexure 5 final report in Crime No.490/2021 of Nattukal Police Station, Palakkad now pending as C.P.No.38/2022 before the JFMC, Mannarkad and all records connected to it and to quash the same as illegal and unjustifiable.

2. To effectively mould the remedy and grant such other and further relief/reliefs as the petitioners may pray for from time to time and which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to grant in the interests of justice.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the records.

3. In this matter, prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 511 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Originally crime was registered as on 14.10.2021 in relation to an occurrence of the year 2007 when the victim girl who was aged 18 years, divulged sexual assault occurred at the age of 5 years before a doctor for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. During investigation, the Investigating Officer filed report stating that the offence made out is one under Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC. Accordingly Section 354 IPC was deleted and final report filed alleging commission of offence under Sections 376 read with 511 of IPC.

4. While canvassing quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently canvassed a long delay of 14 years, 9 months 23 days (5411 days) in lodging the FIR and also vehemently argued that this Crime was registered after long delay when the father of the defacto complainant/victim was dissatisfied with the allotment of family property by the petitioner's wife's mother, who is the sister of the father of the victim, by granting 10 cents of land/property to her 3 sons and 2 daughters including the father of the defacto complainant/victim. Accordingly, it is submitted that the entire case is foisted at a much belated stage and the delay itself is a reason to disbelieve the allegation in toto and to quash the proceedings.

5. Quashment sought for is zealously opposed by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and he read out the FIS pointing out the guilt of the accused and also submitted that the delay has been properly explained. According to the learned counsel, the occurrence was divulged when the de facto complainant felt a mental condition with insomnia and she met the doctor for the said purpose.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the version of the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and submitted that going by the prosecution materials, prima facie case is made out. Therefore, quashment sought for is liable to fail.

7. In this matter, originally, FIR was registered on 14.10.2021 on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant/victim. As per the FIS, it has been recited that during 2007, when the father of the defacto complainant was in Gulf and the defacto complainant was aged 5 years, her mother went to hospital. There was marriage of the brother of the father of the defacto complainant on 27.12.2007. Two, three days thereafter, mother again went to hospital along with her sister after entrusting the defacto complainant/victim at the hands of the grandmother. Thereafter, she was entrusted to the care of her father's sister. The FIS recites further that she went to sleep in the afternoon when staying at the house of the father's sister. The accused, who is husband of her father's sister mounted on her, pressed on her vital parts and put his penis in between her thighs.

8. It is to be noted that even though such an occurrence happened at the age of 5, the victim did not disclose the incident to anybody for a period of 5411 days. The de facto complainant also has no allegation apart from the solitary inciden