The main legal point established is that inordinate delay in filing an FIR, lack of specific details, and the applicability of limitation under Section 468 of CrPC can lead to the quashing of the FIR.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of FIR No. 1/2018, registered under Section 354 IPC against the petitioner at Women Police Station, Shimla as well as other proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Before proceeding further, I will at this stage refer to the contents of the FIR. The allegations contained in the said FIR are that the petitioner/accused was the son of the Xs fathers sister. He was a professional Actor. X saw the accused in family gatherings once or twice a year since she was a young child. They rarely interacted with each other directly and never without other relatives/parents. In January, 1971, when X was about 18 years old, accused arranged with her father to have her join on the set of his movie. Accused had never spoken to her about the shooting of the film nor she had been invited personally to attend the same. These arrangements were made by the accused without X being aware of the same. Accused arrived at her house in a Car with a driver and two male film industry colleagues. She joined the accused in the Car and they drove from New Delhi to Shimla. At Shimla, the group went directly to a hotel. There the accused took X to a room, which had two separate beds. Being tired from the journey, she went to sleep in one of the beds, which was pushed against the Wall. Later, while she was sleeping, accused returned to the room. He joined the two beds together and therein he assaulted her with the intent to outrage her modesty, as narrated in the FIR. As per X, the accused had consumed alcohol. Thereafter, accused left her alone and both of them went to sleep silently in the room that night. Further, as per X, next morning the accused asked his driver to buy some clothes for her and take her to New Delhi.

3. Quashing of the FIR has been sought, inter alia, on the grounds that as per the FIR, the alleged incident dates back to the month of January, 1971 and as there is an inordinate delay in filing the FIR and further as no explanation is there for such an inordinate delay in registration of the impugned FIR, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside, because inordinate delay in registration of FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations, as it loses the advantage of spontaneity and danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations.

4. According to the petitioner, FIR has been registered with an oblique motive to harass him. The petitioner has alleged mala fides behind lodging of the complaint against him by X. On oath, it has been mentioned in the petition that his family runs a big media house and daughter of X had auditioned in the same and X was enraged as to why her daughter was not adjusted for a role for which she had auditioned. As per the petitioner, the manner in which the incident stood narrated in FIR smacks of mala fide. The date of the alleged incident is not mentioned in the FIR nor it is mentioned therein as to in which hotel the alleged incident took place. The FIR does not mention the names of two male actors, who allegedly accompanied the petitioner and X in the Car. No explanation is offered by X for delay of 47 years in lodging the FIR and thereafter the sudden to urge get the FIR registered through a lawyer by sending a copy from United States. There is no mention of the movie during the shooting of which the alleged incident took place. Petitioner being one of the busiest Actors of the Film Industry in the year 1971, was always made to stay either in a suite or most premium room in a hotel while his staff was given separate accommodation and the whole narration of room having two separate single beds and petitioner sharing the room with the complainant was false. He had no time to travel to Shimla by Car and the route usually taken by him was a flight