Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint Alleging Grave Offences U/S 354A IPC Fatal To Prosecution: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a prosecution initiated by a woman alleging offences under Section 354A of IPC (sexual harassment) for having filed the complaint three years after the alleged incident took place.

Justice M Nagaprasanna sitting at Dharwad allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution under sections 354A, 354B & 504 of the Indian Penal Code observing that the delay in registering the crime in the peculiar facts of this case was fatal.

“A perusal at the complaint would not indicate any semblance of explanation for the delay in filing the complaint. The delay in the peculiar facts of this case is fatal for the reason that the offences alleged are ones punishable under Sections 354A & 354B of the IPC, they are ones that are grave, which would touch upon the outraging the modesty of the complainant.”

The complaint filed on 21.01.2020 alleged that the complainant married one Aman Afraj and started living with her husband in a particular house. The petitioner here is their neighbour.

In 2017, the petitioner became close to the complainant and started misusing their friendship by asking her for a physical relationship. The petitioner had recorded their phone calls and videos and shown them to her husband and brother-in-law to abuse the complainant after which he deleted the recordings. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in the matter.

The petitioner argued that if the incident happened in 2017, nothing prevented the complainant from registering a complaint for the last three years. He contended that for sheer delay, the complaint should be annulled.

The bench noted that though the complainant and the petitioner were residing next to each other at Jamakhandi, the complaint is registered at Satara, Maharashtra State. The incident that is narrated in the complaint is of the year 2017. The complaint admittedly was registered on 15.11.2019, which on transfer became a crime before the jurisdictional Police, Jamkhandi Circle.

Then it held that a perusal of the complaint did not indicate any semblance of explanation for the delay in filing the complaint. The delay in the peculiar facts of this case is fatal for the reason that the offences alleged are ones punishable under Sections 354A & 354B of the IPC, they are ones that are grave, which would touch upon the outraging the modesty of the complainant.

It added,

“The complainant could not have waited for two years and registered the crime elsewhere in Maharashtra for the incident that had happened at Jamkhandi Circle in Karnataka, the complaint on the face of it, is a misuse and abuse of the process of law.”

Relying on the Apex court judgment in the case of Chanchalapati Das Vs. State of West Bengal [2023 SCC Online 650], wherein the court held that the complaint brought before the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. will have to be scrutinised where there is a gross unexplained delay or delay is unsatisfactorily explained, those would become the circumstances where the Court would exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings.

The bench said “The case at hand forms a classic illustration of what the Apex Court has held in the case of Chanchalapati Das (Supra), therefore, permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of process of law and results in miscarriage of justice.”

Accordingly, it allowed the petition.

Case Title: Usman Makandar alias Usmanshah And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100989 OF 2020

Appearance: Advocate S.H. Mittalkod for Petitioner.

HCGP V.S. Kalasurmath for R1.

Advocate Nadim S Pathan for R2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order