Refusing to quash an FIR against a man accused of molesting his domestic help, the Bombay High Court observed that in a our traditional society, families find it extremely difficult to report “genuine” sexual assault and harassment cases and such matters cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay in lodging an FIR.

A single-judge bench of Justice Ranjitsinha R Bhonsale passed the order on June 10 on a plea by the man seeking quashing of an FIR registered by the Mumbai Police in 2019.

The FIR alleged an offence punishable under Section 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The plea also sought quashing of the subsequent proceedings pending before the magistrate court.

The complaint by the woman claimed that on the afternoon of March 10, 2019, when she went to the accused’s house for her work as a domestic help, he allegedly molested her, after which she managed to escape and informed her husband about it. The husband visited the housing society where the accused lived and informed the people present about the allegation. The woman filed the complaint on April 2 of that year, based on which an FIR was lodged by the police.

Senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani for the accused, among other arguments, claimed that the FIR was an “afterthought” and was filed at a “belated stage” after a delay of 21 days from the day of the alleged incident. Jagtiani also argued that the explanation given for the delay was “vague,” and there was an attempt to extort money from the petitioner through the FIR in question.

Justice Bhonsale observed that the statement of the complainant woman “prima facie makes out a case under Section 354 of IPC” and that the petitioner’s defences are required to be tested during the trial.

On the question of delay in lodging the FIR, the judge observed, “In a traditional society like ours, unfortunately many families find it exceedingly and extremely difficult to initiate even a genuine criminal prosecution when such nature of offences are involved.”

The delay is “required to be exceptionally long” and has to be considered based on the “surrounding circumstances along with the nature and severity of allegations,” the HC noted.

“In my opinion, cases relating to offences against women and similar cases, the criminal prosecution ought not to be thrown out on the sole ground of unexplained delay unless the delay is attributed to some mala fides, personal vengeance or vendetta which is prima facie made out,” Justice Bhonsale held and dismissed the plea.