Allegations of outraging modesty disclosing cognizable offences cannot be quashed on grounds of counterblast and delay.

The petitioner sought quashment of FIR Crime No. 330/2022 registered at P.S. Madhoganj for offences under Sections 294, 354, 354(A), 452, and 506 of the IPC.

The complainant alleged that on 04.07.2022, the petitioner forcibly entered her house, used abusive language, caught her collar, assaulted her chest (tearing her clothes), and threatened to kill her.

The petitioner contended that the FIR was a "counterblast" to an earlier FIR (Crime No. 329/2022) lodged by him against the complainant and her husband for assaulting him and his son on the same night.

He further argued that a delay of nearly four hours in filing the FIR, despite the police station's proximity, suggested fabrication.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences under the IPC.

2. Whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the grounds of being a "counterblast" involving a delay in reporting.

The court applied the settled principles governing the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., asserting that such powers must be exercised with extreme caution only to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

It relied on the doctrine that at the preliminary stage, the court cannot conduct a "mini-trial," appreciate evidence, or adjudicate disputed questions of fact.

Furthermore, it noted that in cases of outraging a woman’s modesty, slight delays are not fatal due to social stigma.

The Court observed that the FIR specifically alleged house trespass, physical assault with intent to outrage modesty, and criminal intimidation, which prima facie constitute offences under Sections 294, 354, 354-A, 452, and 506 of the IPC.

Regarding the three-and-a-half-hour delay, the Court reasoned that such a timeframe is not "inordinate" in the context of sexual harassment involving mental trauma and hesitation.

Addressing the "counterblast" argument, the Court held that the existence of a cross-case and the sequence of complaints are matters of evidence to be tested during trial.

It concluded that since the FIR disclosed cognizable offences on its face, the court could not interfere with the investigation or quash the proceedings based on the accused's defense of malice or false implication.

The High Court dismissed the petition and disposed of all pending applications.