21-Day Delay in Filing FIR Not Fatal in Cases Involving Sexual Offences Due to Social Stigma surrounding Traditional families: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

The Bombay High Court on June 10, 2026 dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, holding that a 21-day delay in lodging an FIR alleging outraging of a woman’s modesty cannot by itself be fatal to the prosecution given the social stigma attached to such offences, and that non-recording of the complainant’s statement under Section 164(5A) of the CrPC does not vitiate an otherwise prima facie made-out case [Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker v. State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1297 of 2021].

Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale held that the defences raised by the petitioner, including the delay in filing the FIR, the CCTV footage of the housing society, and the non-recording of statements,  were all matters to be tested at trial and could not form the basis for quashing the FIR at the threshold.

Background

The complainant (Respondent No. 2) had been working as a domestic help and was introduced to the petitioner through a watchman at a housing society in Kandivali (East), Mumbai, for cooking work at a monthly consideration of ₹5,000. She joined work from March 1, 2019. According to the FIR, on March 10, 2019, while the complainant was cleaning utensils in the kitchen, the petitioner allegedly caught her from behind, pulled her saree and touched her private parts. The complainant escaped, and later that day informed her husband, following which she and her husband visited the society and informed others of the incident. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 354 of the IPC on April 2, 2019, resulting in registration of FIR No. 139/2019 at Samata Nagar Police Station, Kandivali, Mumbai, and the subsequent filing of a chargesheet.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and the resultant proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, Mumbai, contending that the FIR was filed 21 days after the alleged incident without adequate explanation, that CCTV footage showed the complainant entering and leaving the flat within one to two minutes, that the complaint was an attempt at extortion following a dispute over the quality of her cooking, that the petitioner had received threatening calls demanding money in lieu of dropping the complaint, that he had paid ₹5,000 to the complainant on humanitarian grounds in the presence of a senior police officer prior to the FIR being lodged, and that the complainant’s statement under Section 164(5A) of the CrPC had not been recorded as she had refused to give it.

Delay in Filing the FIR

The Court held that while the FIR had been filed 21 days after the alleged incident without explicit explanation, delay alone cannot be a ground to quash a criminal prosecution unless it is considerably long and unexplained, and the reasonableness of any delay depends on the nature of the offence, the age of the victim and the social strata to which the victim belongs.

The Court observed that in a traditional society, many families find it extremely difficult to initiate even a genuine criminal prosecution in cases involving offences such as Section 354 of the IPC, sexual offences, offences under the POCSO Act, or Section 498-A of the IPC, given the social stigma attached. In such cases, the complainant may take time to gather the courage to file a complaint, anticipating uncomfortable questions and social stigma. The Court held that in offences against women, criminal prosecution ought not to be thrown out solely on the ground of unexplained delay unless the delay is attributable to mala fides, personal vengeance or vendetta that is prima facie made out and writ large on the record.

Non-Recording of Statement Under Section 164(5A) of the CrPC

The Court examined the object and purpose of Section 164(5A) of the CrPC, which requires the Judicial Magistrate to record the statement of a victim in offences including Section 354 of the IPC, in accordance with sub-section (5) of Section 164. The Court held that this provision is intended to provide a sense of security and a fear-free atmosphere enabling the victim to depose correctly, and constitutes a protective shield in aid of investigation.

The Court held that the provision itself does not specify the consequence of non-recording, and that non-recording or refusal of the victim to give such a statement cannot in all cases prove fatal to the prosecution or confer an automatic benefit upon the accused. Non-recording of a Section 164(5A) statement does not, by itself, vitiate an investigation or render it unjust or unfair, and cannot be the sole ground for rejecting a criminal prosecution that is otherwise prima facie made out, though it may, depending on the facts, assist an accused in canvassing mala fides.

CCTV Footage as Defence Material

On the petitioner’s reliance on CCTV footage to argue that the timeline made the alleged incident impossible, the Court held that a minor discrepancy in timing between the FIR and the CCTV footage was not sufficient to draw an inference that no incident took place at all. The Court held that CCTV footage from an independent source may be considered at the quashing stage only if it demonstrates a total impossibility of the incident having occurred, bringing the case within categories 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the categories identified by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and must additionally satisfy the four-step test laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025.

Prima Facie Case Under Section 354 IPC

The Court referred to the settled meaning of “modesty” under Section 354 of the IPC, relying on Ramkripal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCC 265, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63, and Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka and Another, (2025) 3 SCC 612, all of which hold that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.

Applying this test, the Court held that a bare reading of the FIR, alleging that the petitioner caught the complainant from behind, pulled her saree and touched her private parts, prima facie disclosed the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The complainant had made a clear and categorical statement making out the offence, and all of the petitioner’s contentions amounted to defences that would have to be tested at trial.

Scope of Quashing Jurisdiction Under Section 482 CrPC

The Court reiterated that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC are extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of cases, and that the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of evidence or conduct a mini-trial at the quashing stage. The Court relied on Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399, and Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2540, both of which hold that quashing is warranted only where, taking the case at face value, no case is made out at all, and that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the correctness of material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet.

Finding sufficient grounds for the prosecution to proceed on a prima facie consideration of the FIR and the material collected during investigation, the Court held that no case was made out for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC and dismissed the petition.

Case Details

• Case Title: Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker v. State of Maharashtra and Another
• Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1297 of 2021
• Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
• Judge: Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
• Date of Reserving Order: February 23, 2026
• Date of Pronouncement: June 10, 2026

Appearances: 

• For Petitioner: Senior Counsel Haresh Jagtiani with Advocates Nikhil Ghate and Pushpvijay Kanoji
• For Respondent-State: Additional Public Prosecutor Y.M. Nakhwa
• For Respondent No. 2: Advocate Dilip Shukla

[Read Judgment]