Want to be a
Soolegal Member
Team SoOLEGAL
5 Oct 2020 3:15pm

FIR can’t be quashed on ground of delay: Bombay HC while hearing a Molestation Case

0
0
3
0

Last week, a resident of Khar, Bombay appealed in the Bombay High Court to quash a case that has been filed against him for the charges of molestation of his own minor daughter. The High Court dismissed the plea and said that the FIR cannot be removed only based on the ground of delay. The division bench comprising of Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice M.S. Karnik rejected the aforesaid plea and said that the FIR cannot be cancelled because the crime was reported after excessive time (5 years later) of the incident taking place.

Relying on the mother of the victim, Khar police booked the accused man under Section 354(assault or use of criminal force against a woman with an intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (assault or use of criminal force to a woman with an intent to disrobe her) of the Indian Penal Code,1860, Section 8(sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and also under other relevant sections of the IPC. The victim’s mother also reported that her husband and the victim’s father (the accused) used to make inappropriate contact with the minor victim and also used to take bath naked in front of the victim when she was 5 to 6 years of age.

The accused had also appealed to the High Court to quash the FIR against him on the grounds that all the allegations made against him by his wife were false and made up stories because she was estranged from her husband and wanted to seek revenge on him. Saying this, the man submitted certain photographs and videos of him and his minor child to prove his innocence. Advocate Aditya Pratap Singh opposed the petition and said that after reading the whole FIR, the crime that was committed needed further investigations. He also submitted the recorded statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and mentioned that before testing the victim’s statement it would not be right for the court to cancel the FIR filed against the accused. Advocate Aditya Pratap’s submissions were accepted by the High Court and the bench said that the crime and the allegations violated the Sections of IPC and POCSO Act and that, the allegations made would be further examined and investigated.


Tagged: Molestation Case Bombay HC Justice S.S. Shinde Justice M.S. Karnik FIR Khar police criminal force Indian Penal Code POCSO Act Advocate Aditya Pratap Singh
Did you find this write-up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Active Members view all

New Members view all