Karnataka High Court
Dr B Karthik Navayan vs State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.18950 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
DR. B. KARTHIK NAVAYAN,
S/o Dubbaiah,
Aged about 41 years,
Permanently residing
#Ho.No.13-344, Christian Colony,
Opp to Block Office (MPDO Office)
Shadnagar, Rangareddy District
Telangana - 509216.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Vasanth.J, Advocate)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
By Indiranagar Police station,
Bengaluru - 560 038.
Rep by Sub Inspector of Police.
2. ASHWINI KP
D/o Prasanna Kumar,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at No.141, 6th Cross,
5th Main, Balaji Layout,
Badrappa Layout,
Kodigehalli, Bangalore PIN 560 094
Karnataka.
...Respondents
(By Sri. P.Thejesh, HCGP for R-1)
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure praying to quash FIR in Crime
No.252/2018 dated:25.09.2018 before the Indira Nagar
Police station filed by the respondents under Section 354D,
506 and 509 of IPC marked as Annexure-K.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the petitioner's counsel. In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner has sought to quash the FIR in Crime No. 252/2018 registered by Indiranagar Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 354D, 506 and 509 of IPC.
2. The second respondent lodged an FIR with the police alleging that the petitioner who was working as Manager at Amnesty International India and started harassing her using his position. Therefore she made a work place harassment complaint in the 3 year 2017. In spite of that complaint, he did not stop sending messages like ' I love you', 'I am full of you', and inappropriate images. Though she took objection, he continued to send objectionable messages to her. Therefore she had to make a complaint to the Internal Committee of the organization where she was working. The committee held enquiry and concluded that the petitioner was guilty of harassing the second respondent. Further her complaint is that the petitioner tried to influence her father and family friends in order to put pressure on her to withdraw the complaint. It is also alleged that the petitioner instigated his close associate to threaten her witnesses. Based on this report made by the second respondent, the police registered an FIR for the afore stated offences.
4
3. Though the argument of the petitioner's counsel is that the FIR does not disclose the ingredients of the offence under section 354D IPC, it is to be stated that given a careful reading to the contents of the FIR, it may be stated at this stage that the allegations made by the second respondent do come within the scope of section 354D of IPC. Here is a case for investigation by the police. By exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C, investigation cannot be stalled. I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl