Delay In Lodging FIR For Outraging Modesty Not Fatal; Victims Often Hesitate Due To Social Stigma: Bombay High Court

"The reasons for delay may vary, and in such cases there can be various reasons for the delay. Such case, attach to them as a social stigma and on many occasions, the complainant may take some time to gather the courage to file a complaint, anticipating uncomfortable questions and social stigma," Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a delay in lodging an FIR for offenses involving the outraging of a woman's modesty cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings.

A single-judge bench of Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale observed that victims in traditional societies often find it exceedingly difficult to initiate prosecution immediately due to the surrounding social lens and the potential for uncomfortable questioning. The Court emphasized that for delay to be a ground for dismissal, it must be exceptionally long and unexplained by the facts and circumstances of the specific case.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash an FIR registered under Section 354 of the IPC at the Samata Nagar Police Station. The Complainant, a domestic worker, alleged that while she was cleaning utensils in the Petitioner's kitchen, he caught her from behind and inappropriately touched her. The Petitioner argued that the FIR was an afterthought filed after a 21-day delay, intended to extort money following a dispute over his dissatisfaction with the Complainant's cooking.

The primary question before the Court was whether a 21-day delay in lodging an FIR for an offense under Section 354 IPC is sufficient to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court was also called upon to determine if the non-recording of a statement under Section 164(5A) of the CrPC by the investigating agency is fatal to the prosecution's case.

Court Rejects Conduct Of Mini-Trial Under Section 482 CrPC

The Court observed that at the stage of quashing, the High Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of evidence or embark upon a mini-trial. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, Justice Bhonsale noted that the High Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in a chargesheet. The Court held that the arguments raised by the Petitioner regarding CCTV footage and timing are matters of defense that must be tested during the trial rather than at the preliminary stage.

"The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC are extraordinary in nature and are required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of cases to prevent the abuse of process of law."

Social Stigma Validates Delays In Reporting Sexual Offenses

Addressing the 21-day delay in filing the FIR, the Court held that in offenses like Section 354 of the IPC or those under the POCSO Act, delay must be construed according to the social strata of the victim and the nature of the offense. Justice Bhonsale remarked that in a traditional society, many families find it extremely difficult to initiate a genuine criminal prosecution for such nature of offenses. The Court stated that delay alone, unless attributed to mala fides or personal vengeance writ large on the record, is not a ground to throw out a criminal prosecution.

"Only because a delay of a few days is not explained, cannot be a ground to throw out a criminal prosecution. The manner in which unexplained delay is to be viewed to a large extent depends on the nature of the offence."

Section 164(5A) CrPC Is A Protective Shield For The Victim

The Petitioner further contended that the investigation was flawed as the Complainant's statement under Section 164(5A) of the CrPC was not recorded. The Court analyzed the provision, which was introduced in 2013, noting that its object is to provide a sense of security and a fear-free atmosphere for the victim to depose facts. The bench held that non-compliance with this section is not fatal to the prosecution, as it is a protective shield provided to the complainant rather than a benefit intended for the accused.

"Non recording of the Section 164 (5A) or refusal of the victim in recording the statement though called upon cannot in all cases prove fatal to the prosecution or imply that an automatic benefit accrues to the accused."

Legal Definition Of Modesty And Gestures In IPC

While discussing the nature of the offense, the Court touched upon the definition of 'modesty' and 'gesture' as discussed in precedents like Ramkripal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court noted that while modesty is not explicitly defined in the IPC, it is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. The bench observed that the ultimate test is whether the action of the offender could be perceived as one capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman, regardless of whether physical advances were made.

The High Court concluded that a bare reading of the FIR prima facie indicated that the offense of Section 354 of the IPC was made out. It held that the Petitioner failed to make out any case for the exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings, as the defenses raised required a full trial. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and directed that the criminal proceedings should continue as per the established law.

"Upon a prima facie consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, this Court finds sufficient grounds for proceeding against the applicant."

Date of Decision: 10 June 2026