Delay alone cannot interdict investigation of offences punishable by more than three years.

The petitioner challenged the FIR in Naihati Police Station Case No. 210 of 2026, registered on 7 July 2026, concerning an alleged incident on 31 January 2025.

The FIR alleged that the petitioner and associates vandalised property, looted household articles, assaulted the complainant and forcibly drove him from his residence.

The petitioner sought to interdict the prosecution, arguing that the delay in lodging the FIR was fatal.

The State and the complainant opposed the petition, relying on Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Whether the delay between the alleged incident and registration of the FIR was, by itself, sufficient to quash or interdict the criminal investigation.

Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the ongoing investigation at its nascent stage.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

In Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, the Supreme Court held that delay in registering an FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding three years is not, by itself, a ground to interdict investigation; the plausibility of the complainant’s explanation for the delay is ordinarily for the trial court to assess after evidence is recorded.

The judgment also cited Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 795, for the principle that delay in lodging a complaint cannot, by itself, justify quashing an FIR.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was identified as the provision under which the petitioner could seek pre-arrest bail.

The Court noted that the FIR was registered approximately seventeen months after the alleged incident, but observed that the investigation remained at a nascent stage and that some invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, prescribed imprisonment exceeding three years.

Applying Punit Beriwala, the Court held that delay alone did not justify stopping the investigation; whether the explanation for delay was plausible was a matter for the trial court after evidence.

Given the limited stage of the investigation and the availability of a pre-arrest bail remedy, the Court found no basis to intervene under Article 226.

It left the petitioner free to take such steps as may be available in law, including approaching the appropriate forum for pre-arrest bail.