Was Delay Condoned U/S 473 CrPC In 'Outraging Modesty' Complaint Against Film Director Ranjith? Kerala High Court Asks Trial Court

A bench of Justice G Girish, while considering Ranjith's plea for quashing of proceedings, passed the following order today:

"Having regard to the nature of contentions raised in this petition, it is necessary to get a report from the trial court as to whether there was any order under section 473 CrPC condoning the delay which occasioned in preferring a complaint against the crime involved in the case. Registry to call for a report from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam as to whether there is any specific order passed by the said court under section 473 CrPC condoning the delay before taking cognizance of the offence. Post it after 1 month. Interim order to continue".

For context, Section 473 CrPC confers power on the court taking cognizance after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained and that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. 

It may be noted that the proceedings against Ranjith are presently pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.

The FIR against him was lodged in August 2024, alleging that in 2009, Ranjith had invited the actress to his apartment for a movie discussion where he inappropriately held her hand and attempted to touch her body with sexual intent.

Earlier, the High Court had closed his anticipatory bail petition since the offence alleged against him under Section 354 was bailable in 2009, when the incident allegedly took place.

Ranjith has denied the allegations and submitted that he was falsely accused by the actress at the instance of some other persons to remove him from the office of the Chairman of Kerala Chalachithra Academy. It is stated that the complaint is filed with ulterior motives and is not bona fide.

It is submitted that the actress filed the FIR falsely after 15 years, alleging that the incident occurred in 2009. Therefore, he argues, the Court should not have taken cognizance of the complaint filed after 15 years of long delay.

Plea said, "Here, the offence is alleged to have taken place in April or May of the year 2009 and the complaint is filed on 26.08.2024, after a period of 15 long years. The court below has taken cognizance of an offence which shall not be taken cognizance of by virtue of Section 468 of the CrPC after a period of fifteen years and it is travesty of justice".

Case Title: Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl MC 250/2025