Court holds that right to speedy investigation under Article 21 is violated where investigation remains stalled despite filing of undetected report; FIR for molestation and outraging modesty quashed in absence of progress
In a significant judgment dated October 15, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Jobin Sebastian, quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered in 2018 against Mohammed Shameer Ali in Crime No. 1104/2018 at Paravoor Police Station, Kollam. The case involved allegations of molestation and outraging modesty under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The FIR was lodged following a complaint by the de facto complainant, who alleged that the accused, after establishing a friendship through Facebook, invited her to Dubai where the offences were said to have occurred during her stay. However, the complainant did not cooperate with the investigation, failing to appear for statement recording under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Due to this non-cooperation and lack of evidence, the investigating officer filed an undetected report before the Magistrate in June 2019.
Despite the filing of the undetected report, the case lingered for nearly eight years without any further progress. The petitioner contended that the prolonged pendency of the FIR, without any fresh material or investigative steps, caused serious prejudice, affecting his employment prospects and personal liberty. The State, supported by an Amicus Curiae, acknowledged that while the undetected report does not extinguish the crime or permanently close the investigation, the accused's right to a speedy investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution must be respected.
Justice Sebastian referred to precedents including the Supreme Court rulings in State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran (1990) and Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2009), which recognize that unreasonable delay in investigation, especially if not attributable to the accused, infringes the right to life and personal liberty. The Court emphasized that while delay alone does not justify quashing, a balancing exercise considering the nature of the offence, reasons for delay, conduct of parties, and prejudice to the accused is essential.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the investigation had come to a standstill since 2019 due to the complainant's non-cooperation and absence of fresh evidence. The offence, though serious, was not of a heinous nature under the given facts. Further continuation of the FIR would amount to undue harassment of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Kerala High Court allowed the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, quashing the FIR and all further proceedings against Mohammed Shameer Ali. The judgment underscores the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly the constitutional mandate for a timely investigation and trial.
Bottom Line:
FIR can be quashed on ground of inordinate delay in investigation and violation of right to speedy investigation under Article 21, even where an undetected report was filed, if investigation remained at a standstill for years due to non-cooperation of de facto complainant and no further material emerged.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Indian Penal Code Sections 354, 354A, Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 161, 164, Constitution of India Article 21
Mohammed Shameer Ali v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001064
