Respondent No.2 lodged first information/complaint

against the petitioner alleging that on 01.02.2012 at about

9.00 a.m., the petitioners forcibly entered her house and

without any sufficient cause, they started quarreling with

PW2 and harassed her and hit her with hands. When

respondent No.2, who is the daughter of PW2, came to her

rescue, the petitioners harassed and assaulted her by fist

causing injuries to her and PW2. It is alleged in the

complaint that the petitioners have tried to outrage the her

modesty. The police registered the FIR against the

petitioners and after conducting investigation filed charge

sheet against the petitioners for the offence punishable

under section 143, 147, 448, 323, 354 read with section

149 of IPC. Taking exception to the same, this petition has

been filed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would submit that the FIR was lodged by respondent No.2

5

after an inordinate delay of 22 days from the date of

alleged incident without offering any plausible explanation

for the said delay. Hence, he submits that the delay in

lodging the complaint is fatal to the case of the prosecution

and it is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he

has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Kishan Singh dead by LRs v. Gurpal

Singh and others, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3624. He

further submits that the wound certificate produced along

with the charge sheet clearly indicates that no external

injuries are caused to the first informant as well as her

mother and in the said wound certificate there is no

mention with regard to the fact that injuries were caused

due to assault made by the petitioners herein. Hence, on

these grounds, he seeks for quashing of the charge sheet

filed against the petitioners.

3.

On

the

other

hand,

learned

counsel

for

respondent No.2 would submit that the delay in filing the

6

complaint would not be a ground to disbelieve the case of

the complainant and the said delay is attributable to various

genuine reasons. The impugned charge sheet filed against

the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage and validity

of the same can be considered only after trial. She further

submits that charges are framed against the petitioners and

thus, the present petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

is not maintainable in view of remedy of discharge provided

under section 239 of Cr.P.C.

4.

I have examined the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

5.

A perusal of the first information report discloses

that the alleged incident has taken place on 01.12.2012 and

the complaint/first information was lodged on 22.12.2012.

In the first information report there is no explanation

offered by the complainant for the delay in lodging the first

information/complaint after 22 days from the date of

7

alleged incident. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Kishan Singh (supra) has held that if there is delay in

lodging the first information, there should be plausible

explanation and in the absence of explanation, the delay in

lodging the first information would be fatal to the case of

the prosecution. In the present case, respondent No.2 has

not offered any explanation with regard to delay in lodging

the first information and as such, the delay in lodging the

first information is fatal and the impugned proceedings

pending against the petitioners stand vitiated.

6.

A perusal of the wound certificate along with

charge sheet would indicate that respondent No.2 and her

mother have not sustained any external injuries. Further in

the wound certificate there is mention that about ten people

have assaulted with fist. In the absence of any hurt caused

to the respondent No.2 by the Petitioners as defined under

Section 319 of IPC, the charge sheet filed for the offence

punishable under Section 323 of IPC is untenable. Hence, it

8

is implied that respondent No.2, as an afterthought, has

lodged complaint so as to falsely implicate the petitioners

herein.

7