Nearly eight years after it was registered, with the investigation at a standstill since an undetected report in June 2019, the Kerala High Court Quashes Sexual Harassment FIR of 2018, holding that inordinate delay not attributable to the accused can violate Article 21, though delay by itself is never an automatic ground for quashing.
Ernakulam: Crime No. 1104/2018 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam, registered under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, has been quashed. The Kerala High Court, by an order dated October 15, 2026, allowed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after noting that the investigation had not moved since the police filed an undetected report in June 2019 [Mohammed Shameer Ali v. State of Kerala and Others].
Justice Jobin Sebastian, assisted by an amicus curiae, heard the petition on October 7, 2026. The allegations in the FIR are untested, the Court did not examine them on merits, and the accused is presumed innocent.
An undetected report does not end an FIR, but delay can bite
The amicus submitted that an undetected report does not stop the police from reopening the investigation on fresh material, but that years of delay may infringe Article 21. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar. The High Court began by holding that filing an undetected report is not, by itself, a ground to quash an FIR, since such a report is not a final report and the investigation is treated as continuing.
It then went through the Supreme Court’s rulings in State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran, which cautioned that delay does not by itself provide a ground to quash, and Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, which held that the right to speedy trial extends to the investigation stage. The principle, in the Court’s words:
“an inordinate delay in the investigation and trial not attributable to the accused amounts to a violation of Article 21 and warrants the quashing of criminal proceedings if there are compelling and exceptional circumstances. In essence, the quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay in the investigation is not automatic.”
The complaint and the petitioner’s case
A complaint made to the Police Chief of Chhattisgarh was forwarded to the Police Chief of Kerala and then to the Paravoor Station House Officer, and the FIR followed. It alleges that the petitioner befriended the complainant on social media, invited her to Dubai, and subjected her to sexual assault and outraged her modesty there between May 17 and May 29, 2018. These are allegations, and the identity of the complainant is not disclosed in this report.
The petitioner’s case was that the investigating officer issued notices for recording her statements under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but she neither responded nor cooperated. The police therefore filed an undetected report before the jurisdictional Magistrate on June 29, 2019. He argued that the continued pendency of the FIR, with no progress, prejudiced his future prospects, including employment.
Weighing the delay
The Court said it must weigh the nature and gravity of the offence, the reasons for delay, the conduct of the parties and the actual prejudice to the accused. On the facts, it found that nearly eight years had passed since the crime was registered with no progress after 2019, and that the investigation stalled because the complainant did not appear or produce material, leaving the police without enough evidence to file a chargesheet.
The Court observed that the nature of the alleged offence could not be treated as heinous on these facts, and noted that the complainant, an adult and educated woman, had travelled abroad at the petitioner’s invitation after the two met in Kerala. It held:
“More significantly, it was due to the non-cooperation of the de facto complainant that the investigation in this case was stalled and the investigating agency was constrained to file a report as undetected. Therefore, under these circumstances, the further continuance of the FIR against the petitioner is unwarranted, and the same deserves to be quashed.”
The FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioner stand quashed. The Court placed on record its appreciation of the amicus curiae for assisting it.
What the order signals
A right to speedy investigation protects the accused as much as the complainant, so a criminal case cannot hang over a person indefinitely once the investigation has stopped moving. At the same time, the High Court is careful to say that delay is not an automatic ticket to quashing, and that each case calls for a balance of the gravity of the allegation, the cause of the delay and the prejudice caused.
The order also clarifies that an undetected report, standing alone, does not end an FIR, so the route to quashing runs through Article 21 and the facts of the delay rather than through the report itself.
Case Title: Mohammed Shameer Ali v. State of Kerala and Others [Crl.M.C. No. 10675 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Jobin Sebastian, Kerala High Court
Date of Order: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Advocate M. Rajesh for the petitioner; Public Prosecutor V. R. Ramlal for the State; Advocate K. Rakesh as amicus curiae