The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Kerala resident seeking to quash an FIR registered against him under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code the provision dealing with assault or criminal force used against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The judgment was pronounced on June 10, 2026 by Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale.
Background of the Case
The complainant, referred to as Respondent No. 2, was a domestic worker who had been employed by the petitioner, Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker, a resident of Spring Grove UNO Society in Kandivali (East), Mumbai. She was hired in early March 2019 to cook meals twice daily at a monthly wage of Rs. 5,000.
According to the FIR, on March 10, 2019, while the complainant was cleaning utensils in the kitchen, the petitioner allegedly grabbed her from behind, pulled her saree, and touched her private parts. She managed to free herself and immediately left the flat.
The FIR was filed on April 2, 2019 - about 21 days after the alleged incident. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to have the FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed.
The petitioner's senior counsel contended that the FIR was an afterthought filed after a demand for money was refused. It was argued that CCTV footage showed the complainant had entered and left the flat within one to two minutes too short a window for the alleged incident. Counsel also pointed out that the complainant's statement under Section 164(5A) of the CrPC was never recorded, and raised the 21-day delay in filing the FIR as suspicious.
The petitioner claimed that on March 10, he had actually terminated the complainant's services owing to unsatisfactory cooking, paid her Rs. 2,000 as settlement, and that she left after threatening him with "dire consequences."
Justice Bhonsale was not persuaded. The court held that a bare reading of the FIR prima facie discloses an offence under Section 354 IPC, and that the arguments raised by the petitioner were essentially his defences matters to be examined at trial, not at the stage of quashing.
On the delay, the bench observed that in cases involving offences against women, complainants often take time to come forward due to social stigma and fear. The court noted, delay alone cannot be a ground to throw out a criminal prosecution unless it is considerably long and clearly attributable to mala fides.
On the CCTV footage, the court held that minor timing differences between the FIR account and the footage were insufficient to conclude that no incident took place at all.
Regarding the non-recording of the statement under Section 164(5A) CrPC, the court clarified that this provision is a protective shield for the complainant, and its non-compliance does not automatically vitiate the prosecution or confer any benefit on the accused.
Finding no grounds to exercise its extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC, the court concluded that the petitioner had failed to make out any case for interference.
The petition was dismissed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1297 of 2021
Judge: Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
Decision Date: June 10, 2026
