Unexplained FIR delay and refusal of DNA testing can undermine paternity cases and justify quashing as abuse of process
Unexplained delay in lodging an FIR may weaken the prosecution case because it can suggest embellishment or afterthought. Where the dispute centrally concerns paternity, refusal to cooperate in ordered DNA testing, together with destruction of the foetus by abortion, may justify an adverse inference if it prevents collection of crucial scientific evidence. On those facts, the prosecution story may be treated as lacking a reliable foundation and continuation of the proceedings may be regarded as an abuse of process, leading to quashing of the FIR and related proceedings.
Issues: (i) Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR undermined the credibility of the prosecution case; (ii) Whether the refusal to cooperate in DNA testing and the subsequent abortion of the foetus justified quashing of the criminal proceedings as abuse of process.
Issue (i): Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR undermined the credibility of the prosecution case.
Analysis: The alleged incident was said to have occurred during November 2016, whereas the FIR was registered only in March 2017. The delay was not satisfactorily explained. In criminal cases, an unexplained delay in initiating proceedings may permit embellishment, afterthought, and a coloured version of events, thereby affecting the reliability of the prosecution case.
Conclusion: The unexplained delay weighed against the prosecution and supported doubt about the veracity of the accusation.
Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to cooperate in DNA testing and the subsequent abortion of the foetus justified quashing of the criminal proceedings as abuse of process.
Analysis: The complaint turned substantially on the issue of paternity, for which DNA testing had been ordered. The refusal to provide samples and the later termination of the pregnancy were treated as conduct that destroyed crucial scientific evidence. On those facts, an adverse inference was drawn that the evidence would have weakened the prosecution case, and the Court held that the very foundation of the prosecution story had collapsed.
Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed as continuation of the case would amount to abuse of the process of court.
Final Conclusion: The FIR and all further proceedings arising from it were quashed, and the criminal miscellaneous case was finally disposed of in favour of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution case depends on a scientific paternity inquiry, deliberate non-cooperation in DNA testing coupled with destruction of the relevant evidence may justify an adverse inference and quashing of proceedings if the substratum of the prosecution case is thereby rendered untenable.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
