Kerala High Court quashes molestation FIR, citing the complainant’s non-cooperation and her Dubai trip at the accused’s invitation

The petitioner was the sole accused in a 2018 FIR alleging offences under Sections 354 and 354A of the IPC.

The complainant alleged that, after becoming acquainted with the petitioner through Facebook, she travelled to Dubai at his invitation and was sexually assaulted there.

The complainant did not respond to notices or participate in the investigation, and the police filed an undetected report before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 29 June 2019.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR, relying on the report, the absence of further investigative progress, and the prejudice caused by the FIR’s continued pendency.

The High Court noted that nearly eight years had passed since registration of the crime, with no subsequent investigative progress shown.

Whether an FIR may be quashed where the investigation has resulted in the filing of an undetected report

Whether prolonged investigative delay, in the circumstances of this case, infringed the petitioner’s Article 21 right to a speedy investigation and justified quashing the FIR

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief; the FIR alleged offences under Sections 354 and 354A of the IPC

An undetected report does not, by itself, terminate the investigation or confer an indefeasible right to quashing; the investigation may continue if further material emerges, as discussed in Chinnathampi @ Subramani v. State

Under Article 21, the right to a speedy investigation and trial applies to police investigation as well as court proceedings.

Delay alone does not automatically warrant quashing: the court must assess the circumstances, including the nature of the offence, reasons for delay, conduct of the parties, and actual prejudice.

Where an infringement is established, proceedings may be quashed or other appropriate relief granted

State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran, 1990 (2) SCC 340; Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2009 (3) SCC 355.

The Court accepted that the undetected report did not automatically extinguish the case.

It nevertheless found that the investigation had effectively stalled by 2019 because the complainant did not appear or provide material, and that no later investigative progress or new material was shown despite the passage of nearly eight years.

Applying the Article 21 balancing approach, the Court considered the delay, the complainant’s non-cooperation, the absence of sufficient material, and the circumstances and nature of the alleged offences.

It concluded that continued pendency of the FIR was unwarranted in this case.

It allowed the petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 1104/2018 of Paravoor Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioner.