Arun T a Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

CRL.P. No. 12920 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . ARUN .T.A S/O ASOKAN .T.N AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT THOTTUPARA HOUSE MINI STADIUM, VADANAPALLY THRISSUR, KERALA-680619 (ADDRESS AS PER AADHAR CARD)

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF BELLANDUR P.S BENGALURU

¶13

REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BENGALURU - 560001.

¶15

2 . SMT. RATNA

¶16

W/O LATE GANESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.004 NEAR MAIN GATE RELIABLE LAKE DEW RESIDENCY HARALURU MAIN ROAD

¶17

2

¶18

OPP NARAYAN HIGH SCHOOL BENGALURU-560012.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP A/W SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED IN C.C. 28493/2025 ARISING OUT OF FINAL REPORT DATED 27.07.2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE ARISING OUT OF FIR DATED 29.05.2025 IN CR.NO.227/2025 REGISTERED FOR THE O/P/U/S 75 AND 78 OF THE BNSS AND SEC. 66(E) OF THE I.T ACT PENDING BEFORE THE XLI ACMM COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶22

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.04.2026, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

C.A.V. ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.

¶26

3

¶27

No.28493/2025 arising out of Crime No.227/2025

¶28

registered by the jurisdictional police.

¶29

The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

¶30

The complainant lodged a complaint on 29.05.2025 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 64, 78, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short "IT Act") against the petitioner (Accused No.1) and others.

¶31

It is alleged that the complainant became

¶32

acquainted with the petitioner on 16.11.2024 during a visit to a temple along with her family and friends. Subsequently, on 10.05.2025, when the complainant again visited the temple, the petitioner is alleged to have committed sexual assault against her, while Accused No.2 is stated to have intimidated her into silence. It is further

¶33

4

¶34

alleged that the petitioner coerced the complainant to revisit the temple on 21.05.2025 under the pretext of performing pooja, during which he made further sexual advances against her will. This culminated in the registration of the complaint on 29.05.2025.

¶35

Upon completion of investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet. Notably, the offence under Section 64 of BNS initially invoked has been dropped against the petitioner. However, offences under Sections 75 and 78 of BNS and Section 66E of the IT Act have been retained.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that The allegations are inherently improbable and suffer from material inconsistencies, particularly with regard to dates, including overwriting of the date 20.05.2025 as 29.05.2025. The initial allegation of rape having been dropped itself demonstrates falsity of the

¶37

5

¶38

complaint. The material collected during investigation indicates consensual interaction between the parties, including exchange of messages, photographs, and videos. The surrounding circumstances, including financial transactions, booking of accommodation, and involvement of third parties, probabilize a motivated and concocted complaint. Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶39

Per contra, learned SPP would submit that the charge sheet materials disclose sufficient prima facie material against the petitioner. The dropping of the offence under Section 64 of BNS does not dilute the gravity of remaining offences. The exchange of obscene material, coercion, and intimidation are matters requiring trial. At this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial or appreciate evidence.

¶40

The following point arises for consideration:

¶41

6

¶42

"Whether the petitioner has made out a

¶43

case for quashing the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 528 of BNSS / Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?"

¶44

The complaint lodged by the informant – Mrs. Ratna, leading to registration of Crime No.227/2025 dated 29.05.2025, discloses the following sequence of

¶45

allegations:

¶46

(a) The complainant states that she first came into contact with the petitioner/Accused No.1 on 16.11.2024, when she had visited a temple along with her family members and friends. During the said visit, she became acquainted with the petitioner and the other accused persons, and the acquaintance continued thereafter.

¶47

(b) It is alleged that after a lapse of several months, on 10.05.2025, the complainant once again visited the very same temple. During this visit, taking advantage of her

¶48

7

¶49

presence and the familiarity that had developed earlier, the petitioner/Accused No.1 is alleged to have sexually assaulted her within the temple premises. The complaint further asserts that Accused No.2 was present and, instead of intervening, intimidated the complainant and cautioned her against disclosing the incident to anyone, thereby compelling her to remain silent.

¶50

(c) The complainant further narrates that, subsequent to the said incident, the petitioner continued to remain in contact with her and exerted pressure upon her to revisit the temple. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner persuaded and coerced her to come again on 21.05.2025 under the pretext of performing a pooja. Believing the representation and being under pressure, the complainant states that she attended the temple on the said date.

¶51

(d) According to the complaint, during this subsequent visit also, the petitioner made unwelcome sexual

¶52

8

¶53

advances towards her against her will and without her consent. It is alleged that the conduct of the petitioner was not only inappropriate but amounted to continued harassment, taking advantage of the prior acquaintance and the complainant’s vulnerable position.

¶54

The complaint thus portrays a pattern of conduct, beginning with initial acquaintance, followed by alleged sexual assault, intimidation to suppress disclosure, and thereafter repeated coercion culminating in further acts of sexual harassment.

¶55

Unable to withstand the alleged acts and the continuing pressure, the complainant ultimately approached the jurisdictional police and lodged the complaint on 29.05.2025, resulting in registration of Crime No.227/2025 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and other accused persons.

¶56

9

¶57

This Court has carefully examined the

¶58

complaint, charge sheet, and the material collected during investigation.

¶59

At the outset, it is not in dispute that the allegation of rape initially levelled against the petitioner has been dropped while filing the charge sheet. However, the mere dropping of a graver charge does not ipso facto render the entire prosecution untenable, if other offences are prima facie made out.

¶60

The material placed on record, at this juncture, discloses that there was exchange of photographs, videos, and messages of an objectionable nature between the parties. The prosecution asserts that such exchange was not consensual but was a result of coercion and intimidation exercised by the accused.

¶61

Though heinous charges of rape were dropped while filing the charge sheet, the material collected at this

¶62

10

¶63

juncture discloses exchange of obscene photographs, videos, and messages between the parties involved. Whether such material is sufficient to attract the provisions of Sections 75 and 78 of BNS and Section 66E of the IT Act is a matter that requires adjudication during trial.

¶64

The contention of the petitioner that such

¶65

exchanges were consensual is a matter of defence, which cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS.

¶66

It is trite law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS (analogous to Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶67

11

¶68

At this stage, this Court cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. The veracity of allegations, including whether the exchange of chats and media was consensual, whether the complainant was subjected to coercion or intimidation, the significance of financial transactions and surrounding circumstances, are all matters that fall within the domain of trial. The material on record cannot be said to be so bereft of substance as to warrant quashing of proceedings at the threshold.

¶69

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that at the stage of quashing, the Court must only examine whether a prima facie case is made out. The Court should not conduct a roving inquiry into disputed facts. If the allegations and material disclose commission of an offence, proceedings ought not to be quashed.

¶70

12

¶71

Applying the said principles to the present case, this Court is of the considered view that there exists sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner.

¶72

In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the charge sheet materials prima facie disclose incriminating circumstances against the petitioner. The issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact requiring trial. This is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS or Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶73