Unexplained delays in lodging an FIR can lead to quashing of charges, emphasizing the necessity for the FIR to establish a basic case against the accused.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Vishal Jaiswal, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant Abhishek Kumar Patel Alias Abhishek Alias Pankaj has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

"PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash impugned Chargesheet No. 01 dated 1.2.2024, bearing Case No. 98/2024 (State Vs. Abhishek @ Pankaj & Another) u/s 376 D & 506, I.P.C., P.S. Soraon, District Prayagraj pending in Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 09 District Prayagraj as well as Cognizance/Summoning order dated 6.11.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0679/2023 u/s 506, 376D, I.P.C., P.S. Soraon, District Prayagraj.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Case No. 98/2024 (State Vs. Abhishek @ Pankaj & Another) u/s 376D & 506, I.P.C., P.S. Soraon, District Prayagraj pending in Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 09, District Prayagraj."

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submits that co- accused Lokmani Patel approached this Court by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 388 of 2025, Lokmani Patel Vs. State of U.P. and Another wherein an interim order dated 08.01.2025 was passed by this Court. For ready reference, the order dated 08.01.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Heard Mr. Vishal Jaiswal, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State opposite party 1.

Perused the record.

Applicant Lokmani Patel, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Chargesheet No. 02 of 2024 dated 11.06.2024, bearing Case No. 98/2024 (State Vs. Abhishek @ Pankaj & Another) u/s 376 D & 506 I.P.C, P.S. Soraon, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Prayagraj as well as summoning order dated 6.11.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0679/2023 u/s 506, 376D I.P.C., P.S. Soraon, District Prayagraj.

It is, further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Case No. 98/2024 (State Vs. Abhishek @ Pankaj & Another) u/s 376 D & 506 I.P.C, P.S. Soraon, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Prayagraj And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the F.I.R. giving rise to present criminal proceedings was lodged on 27.11.2023, copy of the which is on record at page 17 of the paper book. However, the applicant has not been nominated as an accused in the aforesaid F.I.R. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that in the day, date and time column of the F.I.R., no details have been mentioned. However, in the body of the F.I.R.,, the date of occurrence is said to be April 2022 and thereafter. However, the F.I.R. was lodged on 27.11.2023. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that there is huge delay/laches in lodging the F.I.R. However, neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of the first informant opposite party 2 recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C., copy of which is on record at page 2 of the paper book, any explanation has not come forward with regard to the delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that since delay/laches in lodging the F.I.R. have not been explained, therefore, criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for applicant invited attention of the Court to the judgement of the Supreme Court in P. Ramchandra R