A two-month delay in reporting a gang rape is not enough to throw out the prosecution at the threshold, the Patna High Court has held, refusing to quash the cognizance taken against an accused under the IPC, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Information Technology Act.
Patna: The Patna High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to quash the cognizance taken by the Special Judge (SC/ST), Patna against a man accused of gang rape, holding that a delay of about two months in lodging the FIR in a gang-rape case is not such an “extraordinary delay” that the entire occurrence can be disbelieved, and that the later marriage of the informant to a man who had helped her identify the accused had no bearing on the case [Kamal Kishore @ Chuha v. State of Bihar and Another].
Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, in an oral judgment delivered on October 1, held that none of the guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal was attracted, and that the quashing petition, pending since 2019, was devoid of merit.
The case
The petitioner, Kamal Kishore @ Chuha, a resident of Naubatpur in Patna district, had challenged the order dated November 27, 2018, by which the Special Judge (SC/ST), Patna took cognizance against him under Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 240 of 2018.
According to the prosecution, the informant was sexually assaulted by four to five men while she was on her way to her maternal uncle’s house. A man known to her was present nearby. The informant did not know the assailants by name; the names surfaced because the men addressed one another during the incident, and she confirmed them with the acquaintance before approaching the police. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner, following which the trial court took cognizance.
Accused calls the case ‘concocted’
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the case was “completely concocted.” He contended that the FIR did not specify the date or time of the occurrence, that it was lodged nearly two months after the alleged incident, and that the accused had been named only at the instance of the acquaintance, whom the informant went on to marry after the occurrence. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the plea.
Delay and later marriage do not dent the case
On perusing the record, the Court noted that the case concerned a gang rape committed on the informant while she was travelling to her maternal uncle’s home. Dealing first with the argument on the informant’s subsequent marriage, the Court found that it carried no weight, since, as per the FIR itself, she already knew the man before the incident.
The Court then noted that the police had filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner after investigation, and turned to the question of delay. Rejecting the contention that the lapse of two months was fatal, the Court held:
“Two months delay in gang-rape case is not such extraordinary delay on the basis of which entire occurrence can be disbelieved.”
Testing the cognizance order against the Supreme Court’s parameters for quashing criminal proceedings, the Court found no ground to interfere:
“Accordingly, cognizance order cannot be said questionable, in view of any of the guiding principles as available through the Apex Court decision available through State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335.”
Holding that it was “convinced enough” that the petition lacked merit, the Court dismissed it and directed that the trial court records, if any, be returned to the trial court along with a copy of the judgment.
Why The Patna High Court Ruling Matters
Delay in lodging an FIR is one of the most frequently raised grounds in petitions seeking to quash sexual-offence cases. Courts have consistently recognised that survivors of sexual violence often take time to report the crime because of trauma, social stigma, fear and family pressure, and that delay in such cases cannot be weighed by the same yardstick as in other offences. The ruling applies that understanding at the quashing stage: where the police have investigated and filed a charge-sheet, the question of whether the delay is adequately explained is one for the trial, not a reason to end the prosecution under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The decision also reiterates that the inherent power to quash is to be exercised sparingly and within the categories identified in Bhajan Lal, and that disputed questions of fact raised by the accused are to be tested in evidence. The allegations against the petitioner remain to be proved at trial, and the High Court’s order is not a finding on his guilt.
Case Title: Kamal Kishore @ Chuha v. State of Bihar and Another [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27023 of 2019]
Bench: Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Vijay Kumar Mishra for the Petitioner; APP Navin Kumar Pandey for the State