Mere delay in lodging an FIR is not a sufficient ground to quash criminal proceedings. The assessment of such delay and the credibility of the prosecution's explanation are questions of fact to be determined by the trial court during the course of a full trial.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Judgment & Order

Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Debesh Chandra Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also, heard Learned P.P., Mr. Mr. Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the State-respondent. Further, heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Samar Das appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. This petition under Section 528 of BNSS is filed for quashing the West Agartala PS FIR No.83 of 2025 under Section 281 /106(1) of BNS, 2023.

3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Roy drawn the attention of the Court that in this matter according to prosecution the alleged incident took place on 07.03.2025 but the alleged FIR was submitted at PS on 02.05.2025 and the case has been registered on 17.07.2025 after a long delay of the alleged accident of offence, so, prima facie there is no merit in the FIR laid by the informant which needs to be interfered with and set aside. Learned Counsel, Mr. Roy further drawn the attention of the Court referring the contents of the FIR and submitted that this false and concocted story has been projected by the informant party just to harass the petitioner. It was also submitted that after registration of the case police initially on 20.07.2025 issued one notice to the present petitioner. After that, again on 09.10.2025 further notice has been communicated by the IO to the petitioner of this case and his motor cycle has been wrongly seized by police in connection with this case just to harass the petitioner. So, Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged before the Court to quash the FIR by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS.

4. Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent submitted that the investigation of the case is almost completed. A short time may be given to the IO to submit the charge-sheet against the accused. It was also fairly submitted by Learned P.P. that the present petitioner is a Constable of Police.

5. Learned Counsel, Mr. Samar Das appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 submitted that there is no falsehood in the FIR laid by the informant party but the petitioner tried to influence the investigation being police personnel inspite of happening of specific accident and if at this stage the investigation is stopped then the respondent No.2 would be seriously prejudiced. So, Learned Counsel urged for directing the IO to complete the investigation within a short span of time as the matter is lingering since long back.

6. This present petition is filed under the provision of Section 528 of BNSS which provides as under:

“528. Savings of inherent powers of High Court.- Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

From the aforesaid provision of law, it appears that Section 528 of BNSS can be invoked by a Court to prevent absence of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

7. Here in the case at hand, admittedly the alleged accident took place on 07.03.2025. Now, for the sake of convenience let us reproduce hereinbelow the fact of the prosecution case. According to the informant, Smt. Mukul Das herein the respondent No.2, on 17.03.2025 her son Uday Tapadar and his friend Suman Das after completion of their works were returning back to home by riding one motor bike bearing No.TR-01-AX-5452 through Moylakhol