High Courts have inherent power to quash FIRs that are inherently improbable, especially when there is a significant delay in filing that undermines the credibility of the allegations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 482 and 156(1) - Quashing of FIR - High Court quashed FIR under Crime No. 64/2024 and the associated complaint due to inherent improbability of allegations based on factual discrepancies - The alleged incident was said to have occurred in December 2012, while the location, Taj Hotel, was not operational until 2016. The inordinate delay in filing the complaint (12 years) served to undermine credibility. An FIR that is absurd and improbable on its face should not be allowed to persist. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17)

(B) Jurisdiction - Exercise of Inherent Powers - The High Court's powers under Sections 482 and Article 226 are intended to prevent abuse of court processes and secure justice. A serious inquiry into whether the complaint warranted proceeding against the accused corresponds to the application of the established legal framework. (Paras 6, 10, 30.1, 30.2, 30.3)

(C) Delay in Filing - The court reaffirmed that unexplained delays in filing complaints could lead to conclusions about the fabrication of evidence and malicious intent behind charges. (Paras 11, 14)

(D) Appraisal of Evidence - The court should focus on the nature of evidence readily available to adjudicate whether further processes should ensue, not determine guilt or innocence prematurely. (Paras 29, 30) (E) False Allegations/Mala Fides - Complaints made years after an incident without evidence introduce myriad complications warranting dismissal of claims as a matter of law. (Paras 11, 12, 16)

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“ i) Quash the FIR dated: October 26, 2024 bearing Crime No.0064/2024 filed by the Respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 377 of IPC and Section 66E of the IT Act, 2000, registered at BIAL Police Station and all consequent proceedings/actions thereto (Annexure-A);

ii) Quash the Complaint dated august 30, 2024 filed by the Respondent No.2 before the Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode, Kerala (Annexure-C0; and

iii) Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for 1^st respondent and perused the material on record. The service of notice to 2^nd respondent has been held to be sufficient and he remains unrepresented and has not contested the petition.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned complaint is contrary to law and facts and the same deserves to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Palani vs. State of Tamil Nadu – (2020) 16 SCC 401;

(ii) Parkash Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh – (2019) 5 SCC 628 ;

(iii) State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal – 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;

(iv) Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor – (2013) 3 SCC 330;

(v) Padal Venkata Rama Reddy vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy – (2011) 12 SCC 437 ;

(vi) Chanchalapathi Das vs. State of West Bengal – 2023 SCC OnLine SC 650;

(vii) Imran Siddiqui vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr.- W.P.No.10023/2022 Dated 26.07.2022.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP for 1^st respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 30.08.2024, the 2^nd respondent – de facto complainant filed the instant complaint which was registered as an FIR in Crime No.689/2024 against the petitioner – sole accused before the Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode city, Kerala, for alleged offences punishable under Section 377 IPC and 66(E) of the Information Technology, Act, 2000. The said complaint was transferred to the 1^st respondent – Police authorities on 12.09.2024 and an FIR in Crime No.64/2024 was registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences, aggrieved by which, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

6. A perusal of the impugned complaint will indicate that it is specifically alleged by the 2^nd respondent that the alleged offences were alleged to have been committed in Taj Hotel, Near Bangalore International Airport, in December, 2012. The said complaint is in Malayalam language and its translation is as under:-

“Today (30/08/2024) at 1.45 PM, the statement of Sajeer Cholayil, aged 31, S/o Majeed, Cholayil House, Pokkunnu (P.O), Mankavu, Mob.9014961906, was recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police Station from Kozhikode City DHQ Training Centre (DOB 11/07/1993).

I am currently working as a Lobby-in-Charge at Hotel Tripenta. I have been working here for 4 months. In the year 2006, I acted in a movie called ‘Notebook’. This is the only movie I have acted in. In December 1012, the movie ‘ Bavuttiyude Namathil’ was shot at East Hill. I went there to watch the shooting because I knew Mammootty was at the location. It was there that I learned Renjith, the director, was also present there. It was a shooting location filled with a crowd of people. While I was waiting to watching Mammootty out of curiosity, one of the film crew members noticed me and kept looking me. He came over and asked if I wanted to see Mammootty. He then took me from the crowd and brought to the bungalow where the shooting was happening. After we went inside, Renjith came in, sat on a sofa. The other person left after seating me on the sofa. Renjith asked me for my nam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21667

High Courts have inherent power to quash FIRs that are inherently improbable, especially when there is a significant delay in filing that undermines the credibility of the allegations.

Cases Referred (5)