MOHAMMED SHAMEER ALI vs STATE OF KERALA
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010988822025
2026:KER:80564
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TH
THURSDAY, THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 23RD ASWINA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 10675 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1104/2018 OF Paravoor Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MOHAMMED SHAMEER ALI
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.BUSAINA.S, PANAMTHODIYIL, THEKKUMBHAGOM,
PARAVOOR.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691301
BY ADV SRI.M.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PARAVOOR POLICE STATION PARAVOOR PO, KOLLAM (DIST),
PIN - 691301
3 DR SIJI MATHEW
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O MATHEW CHERIYAN QUARTER NO. 7/D,
STREET NO. 79 SECTOR 6, BHILAI CITY,
DURG DISTRICT, CHHATTISGARH, PIN - 490006
PP-SRI.V.R.RAMLAL
SRI.K.RAKESH, AMICUS CURIAE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.10.2026, THE COURT ON 15.10.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010988822025
Crl.M.C.No.10675 of 2025
2
2026:KER:80564
“C.R.”
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”), by
the sole accused in Crime No. 1104/2018 of Paravoor Police Station,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A of the
Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”).
2. The prosecution case, as revealed from the FIR, is as follows:
The accused, with an intention to subject the de facto complainant to
sexual assault, developed a friendship with her through Facebook and
invited her to Dubai. Pursuant to the said invitation, the de facto
complainant went to Dubai on 17.05.2018, where the accused arranged her
stay at a beach resort until 29.05.2018. During the said period, the accused
subjected her to sexual assault and outraged her modesty. Thus, the
accused is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The averments in the petition, in brief, are as follows:
The allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and
concocted. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint given by
the de facto complainant to the Police Chief, Chhattisgarh, which was
forwarded to the Police Chief, Kerala, and thereafter to the Station House
Officer, Paravoor Police Station, through the District Police Chief, Kollam.
After registration of the crime, the investigating officer issued notices to the
CNR : KLHC010988822025
Crl.M.C.No.10675 of 2025
3
2026:KER:80564
de facto complainant, requiring her to appear for the purpose of recording
her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short, “the Cr.P.C.”), and to take steps for recording her statement
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. However, she did not respond to the notice
or co-operate with the investigation. Consequently, the police filed an
undetected report before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 29.06.2019.
Despite the filing of the said report, the continued pendency of the FIR
would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and adversely affect his
future prospects, particularly his employment opportunities. Hence, the
petitioner seeks to quash the FIR in Crime No. 1104/2018 of Paravoor
Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
4. I heard Sri. M. Rajesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri. K. Rakesh, the learned Amicus Curiae, and Sri. V. R. Ramlal, the learned
Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments in
tune with the averments in the petition. According to the learned counsel,
the crime was registered in 2018 on the basis of a complaint forwarded
through the police authorities of Chhattisgarh. In the said case, after
investigation, the police filed an un-detected report before the jurisdictional
Magistrate in 2019. The learned counsel submitted that such a report was
filed mainly because the de facto complainant did not co-operate with the
investigation. It was further contended that the continued pendency of the
CNR : KLHC010988822025
Crl.M.C.No.10675 of 2025
4
2026:KER:80564
FIR, despite the filing of the undetected report and the absence of any
further progress in the investigation, would cause serious prejudice to the
petitioner and would adversely affect his future prospects. On these
premises, it was urged that the FIR is liable to be quashed.
6. Sri. K. Rakesh, the learned Amicus Curiae, submitted that the filing
of an undetected report does not preclude the investigating agency from
reopening the investigation upon the receipt of fresh materials. However,
the prolonged pendency of an investigation for several years may infringe
the fundamental rights of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the
continued pendency of the FIR in the present case would cause undue
hardship to the petitioner and adversely affect his future. Relying on the
decision in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R.L. Chongthu v.
State of Bihar [2025 KHC 6957], the learned Amicus Curiae further
pointed out that the accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with the
threat of continued investigation and, in the particular circumstances of the
case, including the inordinate delay in investigation, the court is justified in
quashing the FIR.
7. Before considering the contentions raised, it is necessary to
consider the essential factual aspects pertaining to this case. The present
crime was registered in the year 2018, alleging that the petitioner
developed a friendship with the de facto complainant through Facebook
CNR : KLHC010988822025
Crl.M.C.No.10675 of 2025
5
2026:KER:80564
and invited her to Dubai, where he had molested her. Evidently, the crime
was registered on the basis of a complaint given by the de facto
complainant to the Police Chief, Chhattisgarh, which was forwarded to the
Police Chief, Kerala, and thereafter to the Station House Officer, Paravoor
Police Station, through the District Police Chief, Kollam. Admittedly, after
investigation, the police filed an undetected report before the jurisdictional
Magistrate on 29.06.2019. This happened because, in the investigation, not
enough evidence or material to file a charge sheet against the petitioner
could be collected, mainly because the de facto complainant refused to
co-operate with the investigation. The report submitted by the Station
House Officer, Paravoor Police Station, specifically states that, although
notice was issued to the de facto complainant in connection with the steps
taken to record her statements, including a statement under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, she did not appear or produce any
materials to substantiate the allegations. Consequently, the undetected
report was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 29.06.2019.
8. The crucial question that arises for consideration is whether an
FIR can be quashed in a case where the investigation has culminated in the
filing of an undetected report. While considering this question, it must be
borne in mind that the right to have criminal proceedings concluded within
a reasonable time is an important facet of the right to life and personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to
CNR : KLHC010988822025
Crl.M.C.No.10675 of 2025
6
2026:KER:80564
a speedy investigation is not just for the benefit of the victim or the person
who filed the case. It also protects the accused person from having a
criminal investigation hang over their head forever, ending the constant
stress and uncertainty that comes with it.
9. At the same time, the mere filing of an undetected report does not
extinguish the crime or confer an indefeasible right upon the accused to
seek quashing of the FIR. In Chinnathampi @ Subramani v. State
(2017 KHC 3272), a Full Bench of the Madras High Court observed as
follows:
“if the Investigating Officer, despite the earnest efforts taken, is unable
to detect the crime, he will submit a report to the Magistrate stating that
the crime is "undetectable". In such a case, it cannot be construed that
the investigation has been completed. If once the investigation is
completed, then only a report could be filed under S.173(2) Cr.P.C. A
report of this kind where the Police Officer states that the crime is
undetectable, does not terminate the investigation and thus, the
investigation is construed to be in progress. It is like an interim report
not falling within the scope of S.173(2) Cr.P.C. On receipt of such a
report, the learned Magistrate does not pass a judicial order but, instead,
he simply receives and records the same. There is absolutely no element
of any adjudication. This order of the learned Magistrate is undoubtedly
not a judicial order.”
10. Therefore, the filing of a report in a case as undetected cannot,
by itself, justify the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to
quash the FIR. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran [1990
(2) SCC 340], the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered whether the
prolonged delay in investigation would justify quashing the criminal
proceedings. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised
that unreasonable prolonged investigation may cause serious mental
distress and prejudice to the accused. In the said decision, the Hon’ble
CNR : KLHC010988822025
Crl.M.C.No.10675 of 2025
7
2026:KER:80564
Supreme Court observed as follows;
“ a lethargic and lackadaisical manner of investigation over a prolonged period
makes an accused in a criminal proceedings to live every moment under
extreme emotional and mental stress and strain and to remain always under
a fear psychosis. Therefore, it is imperative that if investigation of a
criminal proceeding staggers on with tardy pace due to the indolence or
inefficiency of the investigating agency causing unreasonable and
substantial delay resulting in grave prejudice or disadvantage to the
accused, the Court as the protector of the right and personal liberty of the
citizen will step in and resort to the drastic remedy of quashing further
proceedings in such investigation.”
11. Nevertheless, in the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that:
“No general and wide proposition of law can be formulated that whenever
there is inordinate delay on the part of the investigation, such delay, ipso
facto, would provide ground for quashing the First Information Report or the
proceeding arising therefrom.”
12. However, dealing with the similar question, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, [2009 (3) SCC 355] held
that:
“It is well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal prosecutions is
an inalienable right under Art.21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable
not only to the actual proceedings in Court but also includes within its sweep
the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends
equally to all criminal prosecutions and is not confined to any particular
category of cases. In every case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged to
have been infringed, the Court has to perform the balancing act upon taking
into consideration all the attendant circumstances, enumerated above, and
determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a
given case. Where the Court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy
trial of an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the
case may be, may be quashed unless the Court feels that having regard to
the nature of offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing of
proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a situation, it is
open to the Court to make an appropriate order as it may deem just and
equitable including fixation of time frame for conclusion of trial.”
13. After observing so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the
proceedings in the case. The principle that can be gathered from a conjoint
CNR : KLHC010988822025
Crl.M.C.No.10675 of 2025
8
2026:KER:80564
reading of the above decisions is that delay in investigation itself is not a
ground to quash criminal proceedings. However, an inordinate delay in the
investigation and trial not attributable to the accused amounts to a violation
of Article 21 and warrants the quashing of criminal proceedings if there are
compelling and exceptional circumstances. In essence, the quashing of
criminal proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay in the investigation
is not automatic.
14. While considering whether criminal proceedings have to be
quashed on the ground of delay, under the facts and circumstances of each
case, the Court has to examine whether the delay in the investigation is
unreasonable and whether such delay has caused serious prejudice to the
accused, thereby infringing the right to a speedy investigation and trial
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Mere delay, by
itself, does not warrant quashing the proceedings; rather, the Court must
undertake a balancing exercise by considering the nature and gravity of the
offence, the reasons for the delay, the conduct of the parties, and the
actual prejudice caused to the accused, and determine whether quashing
the proceedings or granting any other appropriate relief is necessary in the
interests of justice.
15. In the present case, the crime was registered in 2018, and the
undetected report was filed on 29.06.2019. Nearly eight years have elapsed
since the registration of the crime, yet the materials placed before this
CNR : KLHC010988822025
Crl.M.C.No.10675 of 2025
9
2026:KER:80564
Court do not disclose any subsequent progress in the investigation. The
report of the investigating officer indicates that the investigation could not
proceed further owing to the non-appearance of the de facto complainant
and the absence of sufficient materials to substantiate the allegations.
Thus, the investigation had reached a standstill as early as 2019, and there
is nothing on record to indicate that any further material has emerged or
that any meaningful investigative steps have been taken thereafter.
16. It is also relevant to note that the de facto complainant and the
petitioner became acquainted through Facebook and had met each other in
Kerala before the de facto complainant travelled to Dubai on 17.05.2018,
where she allegedly stayed until 29.05.2018. It was during her stay in
Dubai that the de facto complainant was allegedly molested. Notably, the
de facto complainant is a mature, educated lady and a dentist by
profession. The nature of the offence alleged against the accused cannot
be treated as heinous under the facts of the present case. It is difficult to
believe that the de facto complainant was totally ignorant of the
consequences of visiting Dubai at the invitation of the accused. More
significantly, it was due to the non-cooperation of the de facto complainant
that the investigation in this case was stalled and the investigating agency
was constrained to file a report as undetected. Therefore, under these
circumstances, the further continuance of the FIR against the petitioner is
unwarranted, and the same deserves to be quashed.
CNR : KLHC010988822025
Crl.M.C.No.10675 of 2025
10
2026:KER:80564
17. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The FIR
in Crime No. 1104/2018 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam City, and all
further proceedings pursuant thereto, as against the petitioner stand
hereby quashed.
This Court places on record its sincere appreciation to the learned
Amicus, who rendered assistance to this Court in an enviable manner.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
CNR : KLHC010988822025
Crl.M.C.No.10675 of 2025
11
2026:KER:80564
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10675 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
1104/2018 OF THE PARAVOOR POLICE STATION
Annexure 2 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA REPORTED IN MOHAMMED SHAMEER ALI VS STATE
OF KERALA ( 2019 (3) KLT 1034)
Annexure 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE UN REPORT DATED 29.06.2019
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFMC,
PARAVOOR