IMPORTANT POINT
Unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, combined with evidence of malafide intentions, can justify quashing of criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process.

ORDER :

(S. Manu, J.)

The third accused in C.C.No.3799/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thrissur has filed this Crl.M.C. praying to quash the final report in the case. Offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 323, 448, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC. First and second accused in the case are her daughter and son. Late husband of the petitioner has been arrayed as the 4th accused with a remark that the charge has abated as against him. The de facto complainant is the mother-in-law of the 1st accused.

2. Allegation against the accused is that on 27.12.2015 at about 13.30 hours, they trespassed into the sit-out of the residence of the de facto complainant, the 1st accused caught hold of her hair and pulled her down, accused 2 to 4 stamped her and also beat her on account of their enmity as the son of the de facto complainant had filed a case for divorce against the 1st accused. The alleged date of occurrence was 27.12.2015. However, the FIR was lodged only on 23.6.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Mohan Pillai submitted that the case was registered against the petitioner, her husband and their children only to settle a score with them on account of strained marital relationship with the son of the de facto complainant and the 1st accused. He narrated the account of prolonged legal battle undertaken by the parties in various courts in Kerala and Maharashtra. Several cases are pending between the parties even now. Most of the cases are pending before different courts in Mumbai. Accused 1 and 2 are working abroad.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the alleged date of occurrence is 27.12.2015, the crime was registered only on 23.6.2016. He pointed out that absolutely there is no cogent explanation offered for the delay involved in lodging the FIR. He referred to the order dated 11.11.2019 in M.C.No.18/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thrissur. He pointed out that the very same allegation was raised in the said case filed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter referred as 'Domestic Violence Act' for brevity). The said case was filed by the de facto complainant against the 1st accused who is the daughter of the petitioner. First accused was set ex parte in the said proceeding. The de facto complainant was examined in the said case. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Magistrate concluded that the allegation of criminal trespass and assault was not proved. The court was of the view that no domestic violence as alleged was established. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. No challenge was made against the order. It has become final. Submission of the learned counsel is that the prosecution launched at the instance of the de facto complainant on the very same set of allegations is not maintainable and on that ground itself it is liable to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel referred to the documents produced as Annexure-IX series which include taxi duty slips, toll receipts, taxi bills, bill for purchase of jewellery and textiles issued at Mumbai on 27.12.2015 to the husband of the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner and her entire family was in Mumbai on the alleged date of occurrence busy with preparations for the wedding of the 2nd accused son which was solemnized on 30.12.2015. He submitted that the bunch of documents produced as Annexure-IX series would undoubtedly prove that the petitioner and her family members were in Mumbai on the alleged date of occurrence. These documents would show that they were traveling within the city and engaged in shopping for the purpose of the wedding. He further submitted that no one can create such documents including toll receipts so as to raise a plea of alibi and all documents produced as Annexure-IX series are genuine which would cut at the root of the story developed by the de facto complainant.

6. Referring to various orders pas