Unexplained Inordinate Delay Can Be A Very Crucial Factor For Quashing A Criminal Complaint: SC
Unexplained inordinate delay can be a very crucial factor for quashing a criminal complaint, as emphasized by the Supreme Court of India, along with relevant case laws, all
Detailed Explanation:
1. Context: What is ‘Unexplained Inordinate Delay’?
Inordinate delay refers to an unjustifiably long gap between the occurrence of an alleged offence and the filing of a complaint or FIR.
When such a delay is not satisfactorily explained, it raises suspicion about the bona fides of the complaint.
It may suggest that the complaint is motivated by malice, an afterthought, or an attempt to harass the accused.
2. Why is Delay Important in Criminal Cases?
Delay affects the credibility of evidence and witnesses.
It adversely impacts the investigation and the ability of accused to defend themselves, as memories fade and evidence may be lost.
It may point towards fabrication, exaggeration, or abuse of the criminal process.
Courts are thus cautious and view unexplained delay as a ground for quashing to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system.
3. Supreme Court’s Approach to Delay in Filing Complaint
The Court has repeatedly held that delay is a relevant factor but not an absolute ground for quashing; it must be considered along with other facts.
Delay becomes a strong ground when the explanation is missing or inadequate, and the delay causes prejudice to the accused.
Courts balance the right of the complainant to seek justice with the accused’s right to a fair trial.
4. Key Supreme Court Judgments
a) K.K. Verma v. Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 570
The Court held that delay in lodging complaint is a relevant factor to consider for quashing.
It emphasized that the complaint should be lodged promptly to avoid suspicion of mala fide intent.
b) S.K. Nair v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1801
The Supreme Court quashed the complaint where there was a gross and unexplained delay in filing.
It observed that the delay led to doubt about the genuineness of the complaint.
c) State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384
Though this case primarily deals with delay in arrest, the Court also observed that delay affects the fairness of trial.
This judgment supports the principle that delay can be crucial in assessing whether prosecution is fair or vexatious.
d) Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40
The Court acknowledged that delay in lodging FIR or complaint is a factor that affects the overall credibility of the prosecution.
While not automatic grounds for quashing, unexplained delays strengthen the case for quashing when coupled with other factors.
e) Delhi High Court in Shakti Bhushan Mehta v. Union of India, Bail Application No. 789/2019
The court quashed the complaint due to unexplained delay of several years, which seriously impaired the accused’s ability to defend.
5. Principles for Courts While Considering Delay
| Factor | Consideration |
|---|---|
| Length of delay | How long was the delay between occurrence and complaint? |
| Explanation for delay | Whether the complainant has provided satisfactory reasons |
| Impact on accused’s defense | Whether delay prejudiced the accused in defending themselves |
| Nature of offence | Seriousness of the offence may affect decision on quashing |
| Other circumstances | Overall context and conduct of parties involved |
6. Summary
Unexplained inordinate delay in filing a criminal complaint is a strong ground for quashing.
Courts view such delay with suspicion as it may reflect mala fide intentions or abuse of process.
However, delay alone is not automatic grounds for quashing; courts consider all facts to ensure justice.
This principle safeguards against harassment through stale or fabricated complaints and protects the accused’s right to a fair trial.
RELATED Blog
0 comments