Non-recording of Section 164(5A) statement and unexplained delay do not vitiate a prima facie case under Section 354 IPC.

The Petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 139/2019 registered under Section 354 of the IPC and the subsequent proceedings in C.C. No. 175/PW/2020

The Complainant (Respondent No. 2), a housemaid, alleged that on March 10, 2019, while she was cleaning utensils at the Petitioner's flat, he caught her from behind, pulled her saree, and touched her private parts

The Petitioner contended that the FIR was a delayed afterthought (filed 21 days late) intended to extort money after he terminated her services for poor cooking

He further claimed that his defense was supported by CCTV footage showing the Complainant’s brief stay in the flat and that he had previously filed a police complaint regarding her alleged blackmail

1. Whether a delay of 21 days in filing an FIR under Section 354 IPC is sufficient ground to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC

2. Whether the non-recording of a victim's statement under Section 164(5A) of the CrPC is fatal to the prosecution

3. Whether the High Court can consider the accused’s defense materials, such as CCTV footage and counter-complaints, to quash a FIR at the preliminary stage

Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty

Section 482 of the CrPC regarding the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of process

Section 164(5A) of the CrPC, which mandates recording a victim’s statement before a Magistrate in sexual offenses

The court followed the principles of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal regarding the categories for quashing

Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. regarding the four-step test for relying on defense material

CBI v. Aryan Singh, which prohibits conducting a "mini-trial" under Section 482 jurisdiction

The Court reasoned that a prima facie case under Section 354 IPC was established as the FIR contained clear and categorical allegations of sexual molestation

Regarding the 21-day delay, the Court held that in sexual offenses, delay cannot be a "straightjacket formula" for quashing, as victims often face social stigma and require time to gather courage

On Section 164(5A), the Court clarified that while the provision is mandatory for the Magistrate to ensure a secure environment for the victim, its non-compliance is an omission of the agency that does not automatically vitiate the prosecution or grant the accused a right to quashment

Regarding CCTV footage and the Petitioner's previous complaints, the Court determined these were "pure defenses" that required a trial to be tested. It held that CCTV footage could only justify quashing if it demonstrated a "total impossibility" of the occurrence, which was not the case here given minor timing discrepancies

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the Petitioner failed to make out a case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC