Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3013
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
M.V. Ramana – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP/1316/2022
Unexplained delay in lodging an FIR raises suspicion and can be fatal to the prosecution's case, especially when no independent witnesses support the allegations.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 354, 506 read with 34 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Petitioners sought to quash proceedings for alleged offences, citing unreasonable delay in FIR lodging and lack of evidence - Court noted that delay defeats the chance of presenting an untainted version of the case and viewed allegations with suspicion - No independent witnesses were examined, and the allegations did not attract the alleged offences. (Paras 5, 7, 10)
(B) Delay in lodging FIR - Courts view delay with suspicion as it may lead to embellishment or fabrication of the case - Delay can be fatal to the prosecution case if no satisfactory explanation is provided. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, relatives of the complainant's wife, were accused of threatening and misbehaving with the complainant during a family dispute. The FIR was lodged six months after the alleged incident, raising concerns about its credibility.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR was unreasonable and that the allegations did not constitute the offences charged, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings were an abuse of process of law.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the FIR due to the delay in lodging it and whether the allegations constituted the offences under IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that unexplained delay in lodging an FIR raises suspicion and can be fatal to the prosecution's case, especially when no independent witnesses corroborate the allegations.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
O R D E R
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.104 of 2022 pending on the file of learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, registered for the offences under Sections 323, 354, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
02. Heard Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Habeeb Abubakar Alhamed, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 as well as Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.
03. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant’s brother’s marriage was performed with one Deepika on 25.11.2020 and they led happy marital life for a period of few days. Thereafter, the said Deepika developed aversion against the complainant and his family members and started quarreling for petty issues. On 30.03.2021 she left the matrimonial home along with her belongings by threatening the complainant family members. On 28.04.2021 at about 1130 hours the said Deepika’s father and their relatives i.e. the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 3 visited the complainant’s house and all the family members of the complainant were present in the house. The accused No.1 threatened them with dire consequences stating that he will register criminal cases through his influence in the Police Department. The accused Nos.2 and 3 caught hold of the complainant’s hair and the accused No.1 slapped her and caught hold her hand and misbehaved with her. Thereafter, the complainant’s parents and brother intervened and rescued her life.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences. The alleged incident took place on 28.04.2021 but the FIR was lodged on 12.10.2021. There is delay of 6 months in lodging the FIR. The father of the complainant has been working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in S.R.Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The said Deepika was harassed by her husband and in-laws i.e. complainant family members, for which, she lodged FIR No.258 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021 on the file of the Station House Officer, Rapthadu Police Station, Ananthapur District, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 read with 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The present complaint was lodged on 12.10.2021 as a counter blast to harass the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioners are relatives of the said Deepika who came as elders to pacify the issues and they are innocent and have not committed any offence.
05. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Dilawar Singh v State of Delhi, [2008 (3) SCC (CRL) 330] wherein at Paragraph No.8 it was held that:
“8. In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case. In Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1973 SC 501), it was held that the delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment as a result of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or conco
