ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner/accused challenges the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.132/2024 registered with Mundgod Police Station for offences punishable under Sections

354A, 354D, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The second respondent lodged the FIR alleging that the petitioner, serving as the In-charge Principal of the Government Polytechnic College, summoned her to his chambers on 25.03.2022 when she was employed as a Group-D employee, misbehaved with her and with sexual intent asked to obey him failing which he would relieve her from service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of more than two years from the date of the alleged incident without any plausible explanation. He argued that the FIR was filed as an afterthought, with malafide intent, and solely to wreak vengeance against the petitioner who had relieved her from service.

4. Conversely, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 (de facto complainant) submitted that the petitioner is allegedly habitual in harassing female employees, and several complaints have been filed against him. They also submitted that a show-cause notice has been issued for initiating a departmental inquiry against him. Considering the cognizable nature of the offence, they argued that the allegations need to be investigated and that the registration of the FIR does not warrant interference by this Court at this stage.

5. The submissions of both sides have been duly considered.

6. It is undisputed that the petitioner is serving as the In-

charge Principal of the Government Polytechnic College and that the second respondent was employed as a Group-D employee. The alleged incident occurred on 25.03.2022. However, the FIR was lodged only on 13.07.2024, after a delay of more than two years.

7. The second respondent’s sole explanation for the delay is that she discussed the matter with her family members before deciding to lodge the complaint. Beyond this, there is no other plausible explanation provided for the significant delay in filing the FIR. Such an unexplained and inordinate delay raises serious doubts about the genuineness of the allegations and lends credence to the petitioner’s argument that the FIR was lodged as an afterthought to avenge her removal from service.

8. In light of the above, the delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the lack of plausible explanation, suggests that the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner may amount to an abuse of the process of law.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v.

M. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 has held as follows:

“30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.”

In view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of investigation against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of law.

Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.0132/2024 registered by the Mundgod Police Station, Sirsi Sub-Division, Uttara Kannada, is hereby quashed.