Karnataka High Court
C. Ganesh Narayan vs State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2024
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 16.02.2024
Pronounced on : 22.04.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.10503 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
C. GANESH NARAYAN
S/O LATE MR. C.V.NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
NO. 44, OSBORNE ROAD
ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 042.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI
POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . REKHA GOUDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
2
NO. 1197, 1ST CROSS
AMBEDKAR LAYOUT
K.B.SANDRA, BENGALURU CITY
KARNATAKA - 560 003.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.A.AHMED, AAG A/W.,
SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
SRI. MANJUNATH K. V., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRIME NO.
0106/2023 REGISTERED BY THE R-1 AND BE PLEASED TO QUASH
THE FIR DTD 19.05.2023 REGISTERED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 16.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.106 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 506, 509 and 354 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri S.A. Ahmed, learned Additional 3 Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The petitioner, on 13-08-2022, travelled from Mumbai to Bengaluru by flight. So does the 2nd respondent/complainant. Both of whom arrived at Bengaluru at 12.00 a.m. on 14-08-2022. The petitioner on looking at the 2nd respondent/complainant who was standing alone and the time being 12.00 a.m. agreed to drop the 2nd respondent to the residence of the 2nd respondent/complainant.
Thereafter, it is the averment in the petition that the 2nd respondent began messaging the petitioner, discussing her problems including sexual harassment of her previous employer and is said to have sought the help of the petitioner that if he could do anything to secure the complainant a job. The petitioner is said to have answered that he would look into it, without committing or assuring purely on humanitarian concern. The chats galore between the two on the said foundation of securing employment.4
4. The 2nd respondent, on the ground that the petitioner has been constantly abusing and harassing her, knocks at the doors of the State Commission for Women ('Commission' for short) seeking appropriate action to be taken against the petitioner by registering a complaint before the Commission. After registering the complaint before the Commission, on 13-09-2022 the 2nd respondent approaches the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru East to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner. It is after these steps that have been taken, a crime comes to be registered against the petitioner in Crime No.106 of 2023. The crime is registered on 19-05-2023 for the incident that has happened in a month between 13-08-2022 and 13-09-2022. The offences alleged are the offences punishable under Sections 506, 509 and 354 of the IPC. The registration of the crime has led the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned senior counsel Sri Sandesh J.Chouta appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that, if at all the complainant has been sexually harassed, there was no warrant for the complainant to have waited for 9 months to register a 5 complaint, as the incident is allegedly happened between 13-08-2022 and 13-09-2022. The complaint is registered before the Police on 19-05-2023. He would submit that invocation of Section 354 of the IPC is, on the face of it, abuse of the process of law.
6. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing for the 2nd respondent would take this Court through the complaint to demonstrate that the petitioner has constantly harassed the 2ndrespondent asking the complainant to be a part of certain activities, which according to the learned senior counsel are too sensitive and personal that cannot be divulged before the Court. It is his case that after lodging the complaint, the complainant has given her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein those sensitive and personal information are divulged. It is his case that the woman who is the victim of acts of the petitioner should not be allowed to go scot-free.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record.
6
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The meeting of the petitioner and the complainant happens on 14-08-2022 at 12.00 a.m. at the Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru. The two get in contact. The complainant accepts the offer of the petitioner to be dropped to her residence. The chat between the petitioner and the complainant moves on and the chat leads to the alleged luring of the complainant to certain activities by the petitioner. The complainant approaches the Commission on 13-09- 2022 itself. The complaint before the Commission reads as follows:
"I'm writing to report an incident based on the produced report. It happened on my way back home from Mumbai (dated Aug 13 2022). I was stuck at BIA (Bengaluru International Airport) post landing. around 12:00 am Aug 14 2022. The Uber app was not responding. oops instead suspended for unknown reasons. And I was checking at the help desk if there was a way out. I was waiting at the uber zone for offline booking if possible and somebody randomly knocked on my back and introduced himself as "Ganesh Narayan" He was checking with me if I needed help. And I told him I have a problem booking online, he quickly responded that he can drop me home. We booked XXL Uber for our drop off and boarded the cab around 12:30 am. While we were commuting, we talked about things like work, vacation and other stuff. I reached home by 01:30 am Next morning I woke up to a surprise invite from him to meet at a local hang out. But I rejected bcoz I was sick and unwell. Later that day, I was talking to him and sharing stuff that happened to me in the past, and checking if he could help me somehow. Also, disclosing the details of sexual harassment case against my ex-employer (state street global advisors) and he didn't react. And we continued to chat the 7 next day and one more day after a week, he made a video call on whatsapp for a game. Unaware of his conspiracy from the past, accepted his invitation. I was on call with him while he was driving, late at 12:30 am. He was hinting at me something about the game and I was clueless. But he could confirm that he had been playing the so-called EQ game since my childhood despite my special ability. He faked to help me with a job and now case against SSGA.
Thinking about what was the real conspiracy that forced him to befriend me and now give up everything for somebody else. He revealed his open relationship with a rural sector employee "Rashmi Tejaswini" from my ex-employer SSGA and ex-schoolmate "Bhavya VR and "Shraddha Poojari" and the fact that he cannot give up his game and checking if I want to continue with him. The reality lies in the fact that he is a new face to me, in-fact I met him for the very first time at the Airport, but his continuous threat in every possible way is horrifying, also that I'm specially abled and not ready to entertain his nonsense any further and willing to end everything.
But the real conspiracy that forced "Ganesh Narayan" to legalise his open relationship with prostitute worker "Rashmi Tejaswini" despite his marriage with "Vidya Nataraj" and now for being caught playing the game with me and not ready to accept his defeat. He also confirmed his continued threat to me until my defeat. Only for his prostitute worker's stability at work place.
I would like to point out on these repeated instances of abuse and harassment from "Ganesh Narayan" that have caused stress, anxiety, fear and threaten, and they have been affecting my personal life every single day.
I'm reporting the incident, bcoz ppl are involved in these activities and this is injustice, and definitely this kind of behavior is unacceptable. and I am sure that Mr. local police officer and his team does not condone this activity. I request you guys to properly investigate this matter and put an end to inappropriate treatment.
Thanks and Regards Rekha Gowda.8
BRIEF TRANSMISSION REPORT (BTR) IS BTR Filled Up ::
Yes BTR Filled On ::
13/09/2022 BTR ::
The present complaint pertains to the alleged harassment/outraging modesty of women /right to live with dignity / stalking.
Is Complaint Entertainable ::
Yes Approval of BTR ::
Approved on 13/09/2022"
The allegation was that the petitioner had forced the complainant to legalize his open relationship with the prostitute despite his marriage. Several other incidents are narrated that the complainant was lured by the petitioner to an EQ game, which according to the learned senior counsel for the respondent is an adult game. This complaint was registered, as observed, on 13-09-2022. Since nothing happened before the Commission, it is then the complainant knocks at the doors of the Deputy Commissioner of 9 Police who forwards the same to the jurisdictional Police where the crime is registered on 19-05-2023 for offences punishable under Sections 506, 509 and 354 of the IPC. The gist of the complaint as found in column No.10 of the FIR is as follows:
F PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ, CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw.gÉÃSÁUËqÀ gÀªÀgÄÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀÄr £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV CfðAiÀÄ ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ, EªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀÄ»¼Á DAiÉÆÃUÀ PÀZÉÃj ¸ÀASÉå:- NCW / C220022088 / NCW /MEM / GS.Dt-13.09.2023. gÀ°è£À CfðAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£À« §UÉÎ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄUÉƼÀî®Ä G¥À¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ¥ÀƪÀ𠫨sÁUÀ EªÀgÀ PÀZÉÃj ¸ÀASÉå:-
46/PÀgÁªÀiÁ/r¹¦(¥ÀÆ)/2023 ¢:-27.04.2023£ÀÄß ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï r eÉ ºÀ½î ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÄÀ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, F CfðAiÀÄ°è£À zÀÆj£À ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ, CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-13.08.2022gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨ÉʤAzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ CAvÀgÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ «ªÀiÁ£À ¤¯ÁÝtPÉÌ ¢:-14.08.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ:- 12.00 UÀAmÉUÉ §AzÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ªÀÄ£É £ÀA-1197, 1£ÉÃ-PÁæ¸ï, CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï ¯ÉÃOmï, PÉ © ¸ÀAzÀæ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560032 E°èUÉ G§gï ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è §gÀ®Ä §ÄQAUï vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁzÀÝjAzÀ G§gï eÉÆãï£À°è EgÀĪÁUÀ, C¥ÀjavÀ C¸Á«Ä vÀ£Àß ¨É£ÀߣÀÄß vÀnÖ UÀuÉÃ±ï £ÁgÁAiÀÄt JAzÀÄ vÀ£ÀߣÀÄß ¥ÀjZÀ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §ÄQAUï£À°è vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ZÉQAUï ªÀiÁr ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÉà JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ §ÄQAUï D£ÉèöÊ£ï vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉýzÀ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà DvÀ£ÀÄ XXl uber £À°è §ÄPÁärzÀ D PÁå¨ï £ÀÄß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 12.30UÀAmÉUÉ ºÀwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 01.30UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ®Ä¦zÉ£ÀÄ.
vÁ£ÀÄ JzÀÝ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ¨É½UÉÎAiÉÄà ¸ÀzÀj D¸Á«ÄAiÀÄÄ vÀ£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ¨sÉÃnAiÀiÁUÀ®Æ PÀgÉzÀ£ÀÄ, DzÀgÉ vÁ£ÀÄ DgÉÆÃUÀå ¸Àj¬Ä®èzÀ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÁÝV, £ÀAvÀgÀªÁV DvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár vÀ£Àß ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ fêÀ£ÀzÀ°è C£ÀĨsÀ«¹zÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉýPÉÆArzÁÝV, C®èzÉà vÀ£Àß ªÀiÁf-GzÉÆåÃVUÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ DVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ w½¹zÀgÆ À DvÀ£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀæwQæAiÉÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, £ÀAvÀgÀªÁV EzÁzÀ ªÀÄgÀÄ¢ªÀ¸À vÀ£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ¤gÀAvÀgÀªÁV ZÁmï ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁV, EzÁzÀ ªÁgÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÁmÁì¥sÀß°è UÉêÀiï DqÀ®Ä «rAiÉÆà PÁ¯ï ªÀiÁrzÁÝV, DvÀ£À »AzÉ EgÀĪÀ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M¼À¸ÀAZÀ£ÀÄß CjAiÀÄzÉ vÁ£ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄäw¹zÁÝV, ªÀÄzsÀågÁwæ 12.30UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è vÁ£ÀÄ qÉæöÊ«AUï ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ DvÀ£À eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ, FvÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£ÉÆßA¢UÉ E-PÀÆåUÉêÀiï Dl DrzÀ£ÉAzÀÄ vÀ£ÀUÉ SÁwæAiÀiÁ¬ÄvÀÄ, C®èzÉà FvÀ£ÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J¤ìqÀ§Æå£À°è J¸ïJ¹ÓJ (¸ÉÖÃmï ¹ÖçÃmï UÉÆèç¯ï CqÉéöʸÀgï) gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ EgÀĪÀ PÉøÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV, £ÀAvÀgÀªÁV DvÀ£À zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M¼À¸ÀAZÀ£ÀÄß CjvÀ vÁ£ÀÄ ¸ÉßûvÀ£ÁV EgÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉýzÁÝVAiÀÄÆ, C®èzÉà DvÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß J¸ïJ¹ÓJAiÀÄ ªÀiÁf GzÉÆåÃV¼ÁzÀ gÀ²ä vÉÃd¹é¤, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 10 ¸ÀºÀ¥ÁpUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¨sÀªÀå « Dgï, ±ÁgÀzÁ ¥ÀÆeÁj gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄzsÉå EzÀÝ ¸ÀA¨sÀAzsÀªÀ£ÀÄß (Open Relationship) EgÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉýPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, vÀ£ÀߣÀÄß PÀÆqÀ CªÀgÀAvÉ E-PÀÆåUÉêÀiï Dl ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä EµÀÖ«zÀÝgÉ, ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÆ, FvÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£ÀUÉ ºÉƸÀªÀÄÄRzÀªÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, «ªÀiÁ£À ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ¨ÁjUÉ ¨sÉÃnAiÀiÁzÀªÀ£ÉAzÀÄ, FvÀ£À ¤gÀAvÀgÀªÁzÀ C¸ÀA§zÀÝ ªÀvÀð£ÉUÉ vÁ£ÀÄ ¹zÀÝ«®è, EzÉ®èªÀ£ÀÆß PÉÆ£ÉUÉƽ¸À®Ä EaѹgÀĪÀÅzÁV, UÀuÉÃ±ï £ÁgÁAiÀÄuï FgÀ£ÀÄ «zÁå£ÀlgÁeï gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÀÝgÆ À , J¸ïJ¸ïfJ AiÀÄ ªÀiÁf GzÉÆåÃV gÀ²äà vÉÃd¹é eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀªÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉƼÀî®Ä M¼À¸ÀAa¤AzÀ §®ªÀAvÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, DzÀgÀÆ vÁ£ÀÄ DvÀ¤UÉ J¸ïJ¸ïfJAiÀÄ ªÀPÀðgï eÉÆvÉ ¨ÉgÉAiÀÄ®Ä vÀ£ÀUÉ ¤gÀAvÀgÀªÁV ¨ÉzÀjPÉAiÀÄÄAlĪÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝVAiÀÄÆ, DvÀ£À ªÉÄîÌAqÀ jÃwAiÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ ZÀlĪÀnPÉUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¤AzÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ QgÀÄPÀļÀªÅÀ UÀuÉÃ±ï £ÁgÁAiÀÄuï gÀªÀjAzÀ DUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, EzÀjAzÁV vÀ£Àß fêÀ£ÀzÀ®Æè ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ ¢ªÀ¸À ªÀiÁ¸À¹PÀ MvÀÛqÀ, DvÀAPÀ, ¨sÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉzÀjPɬÄAzÀ EgÀĪÀÅzÁV, FvÀ£À J¯Áè ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ZÀlĪÀnPÉUÀ¼ÀÄ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ M¼À¸ÀAa¤AzÀ PÀÆrzÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁ£À¨ÀsAUÀ, fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ, ªÀiÁ£À ¤AzÀ£ÉUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj UÀuÉÃ±ï £ÁgÁAiÀÄuï «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆgÀÄ EvÁå¢.."
The offences are the ones punishable under Sections 354, 506 and 509 of the IPC. Section 354 of the IPC reads as follows:-
"354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."
It directs that any person indulging in assault or criminal force to a woman with an intention to outrage her modesty would become open for punishment. Section 506 of the IPC deals with criminal intimidation and Section 509 of the IPC deals with word, gesture or 11 act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. If the ingredients of the offences are considered qua the complaint so registered, it becomes a case where further investigation is required in the matter.
9. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that it is hit by delay is unacceptable, as the incident that has happened between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/complainant as narrated did not for the firsttime spring in a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police. It did spring before the Commission on 13-09-2022 itself. If the complainant had kept quiet all along and for the first time indicated in the complaint dated 19-05-2023, his submission would merit acceptance. Since the complainant did not keep quiet with regard to the activities of the petitioner, they become a matter of evidence, as they are in the realm of disputed questions of fact. Investigation, in the least, should take place in such cases. None of the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the cases of (i) STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. 12 SWAPAN KUMAR GUHA1 and (ii) STATE OF HARYANA v.
BHAJAN LAL2 would assist the learned senior counsel towards any order to be passed in favour of the petitioner.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition lacking in merit stands rejected. Interim order of any kind, if subsisting, shall stand dissolved.
(ii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending against him before any fora.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkp/CT:SS 1 (1982) 1 SCC 561 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335