The petitioner, Chetan Desai, was accused no. 2 along with advocate Chandra Naik (accused no. 1) in a charge sheet for offences under Sections 354A, 354D, 504, 506, 509 read with Section 34 IPC. The complainant, a law intern from Andaman & Nicobar Islands, alleged repeated sexual harassment, stalking, threats and intimidation by both men during and after her internship at a Bengaluru law firm in 2017-2018. She filed the complaint on 20.11.2018 but died on 24.11.2018 from unrelated causes, before her statement could be recorded under Section 164 CrPC or at trial.
The petitioner challenged the charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC. The State opposed, citing witness statements and a spot mahazar as supporting a prima facie case.
The court applied the ratio of Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors. (2025 INSC 173): where the first informant dies before giving evidence for reasons unconnected to the accused, the FIR is not substantive evidence and cannot be proved through the investigating officer. It also followed Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) on the standard for quashing a charge sheet – the court must examine the prosecution material on its face value to see if it discloses a prima facie case or grave suspicion.
Examining the charge sheet witnesses, the court found that the key witnesses (CWs 9-13) were either hearsay (CW.9) or only established that the petitioner visited the firm and knew the complainant, without witnessing any alleged offence. No witness attributed to the petitioner any act of physical sexual overture (Section 354A), stalking or electronic monitoring (Section 354D), intentional insult to provoke breach of peace (Section 504), threat with intent to cause alarm (Section 506), or word/gesture insulting modesty (Section 509). The only acts alleged against the petitioner were enquiring about personal details, conversing about looks, inviting on trips, sending messages, and warning that Naik was powerful and she might not be allowed to enrol as an advocate – none of which satisfied the statutory ingredients.
With the FIR inadmissible and the remaining material not implicating the petitioner in any charged offence, the court concluded there was no prima facie case and no possibility of conviction. Continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process. The petition was allowed and the charge sheet and entire proceedings were quashed insofar as the petitioner.
