Unexplained delay in lodging an FIR may render criminal prosecution unsustainable, warranting judicial consideration and potential interim protection from arrest for the accused.

1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Tandon, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned AGA representing State-respondent- 1 and Mr. Anil Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent 2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners- Shokender Kumar And 9 Others have approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 28.02.2026 lodged by First Informant-respondent 2- Sumit Kumar and registered as Case Crime No. 0099 of 2026, under Sections 351(3), 352, 115(2), 109(1), 190, 191(3), 191(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2015), P.S.- Nandgram, District- Nagar (Commissionerate Ghaziabad).

4. Learned counsel for petitioners in support of present writ petition submits that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances as have now emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR is unsustainable in law and facts. As such, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.

5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for petitioners first invited the attention of Court to the impugned FIR itself, certified copy of which is on record at page-10 of the paper-book. With reference to the day, date and time of occurrence column of the FIR, it is urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that it is an admitted case of the first informant-respondent 2- Sumit Kumar that the incident giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred on 13.11.2025. However, the impugned FIR was lodged by the first informant-respondent 2 on 28.02.2026 i.e. after an expiry of a period of more than three months from the date of incident. As such, the impugned FIR is highly belated. Even though, the impugned FIR is highly belated, yet no explanation has come forward in the FIR itself explaining the delay, negligence or laches in lodging the FIR. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that since the impugned FIR is highly belated but the delay in lodging the FIR having not been sufficiently explained, therefore, the criminal prosecution of petitioners pursuant to such a belated FIR cannot be sustained.

6. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgements of Supreme Court in P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578, P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu , AIR 2019 SC 2866/2019(5) SCC 403, Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. State of U.P. (2022) 15 SCC 164, Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2024) 2 SCC 176, Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others , 2024 SCC Online 938.

7. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the Apex Court in aforementioned judgements has itself observed that if there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. but the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been sufficiently explained then criminal prosecution of an accused on the basis of such a belated F.I.R. cannot be sustained.

8. Much emphasis was laid upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti (supra) wherein the Apex Court quashed the F.I.R. as there was an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the F.I.R.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners has then referred to the judgement of Apex Court in Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand (2013) 3 SCC 791, wherein the Apex Court quashed the conviction of a