Abhishek Mishra vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2025

[Cites 29, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Abhishek Mishra vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2025

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 25.06.2025
Pronounced on : 08.07.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8596 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

ABHISHEK MISHRA
S/O DINESH KUMAR MISHRA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1458/21/31/1
CHANDPUR SALORI
(KAILASHPURI)
TELIYARGANJ, JODHWAL
ALLAHABAD, CAVELLARY LINES
UTTAR PRADESH - 211 004.

... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.MONICA PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANDRA LAYOUT
POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2

2 . PINKI SHARMA
D/O SOHAN LAL SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.15, III FLOOR
4TH CROSS, ANUBHAVA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 072.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI M.B.RAVI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 )

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
SPL.C.NO.1029/2024 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF
LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL
JUDGE BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER OF
COGNIZANCE DATED 20.06.2024 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 354-D,
354-C, 504, 506, 509 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT 1989 AND SEC.66-E OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT,
2000 (ANNEXURE-D) AND ETC.,

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.06.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/sole accused is before this Court calling in

question entire proceedings in Special C.No.1029 of 2024 pending

before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special

Judge, Bangalore, arising out of crime in Crime No.471 of 2023

registered for offences punishable under Sections 354-C, 354-D,

504, 506 and 509 of the IPC, Section 66E of the Information

Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled

Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the

Act' for short).

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The 2nd respondent is the complainant and the petitioner is

the accused. The complainant and the accused met in January

2022 when the petitioner was undergoing coaching for the UPSC

examination and was stationed at Delhi. The complainant is said to

be acquainted with the petitioner's sister. The complainant was

also pursuing her UPSC examination and the averment in the
4

petition is that, in the garb of exchange of notes for study to the

UPSC examination, the petitioner and the complainant get in touch

with each other with exchange of messages. On 12-07-2023, the

petitioner is said to have met the complainant in Delhi, after which

the complainant also moves to the same coaching class and further

with the assistance of the petitioner gets a paying guest

accommodation. The friendship between the two blossomed into

relationship and it is the case of the petitioner that the two got

married, but the case of the complainant is otherwise. However, the

fact remains that the relationship between the petitioner and the

complainant turned irrevocably sore. It is then the complainant

registers a complaint before the Chandra Layout Police Station on

19-10-2023 making several allegations against the petitioner that,

on the promise of marriage the petitioner had recorded all private

videos of the complainant and had begun to blackmail that he

would broadcast the same in all social media. The complaint

becomes a crime in Crime No.471 of 2023 for several offences of

the IPC, Information Technology Act and in the light of the fact that

the complainant is belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the provisions of

the Act was also invoked. The Police, after investigation, filed a
5

charge sheet dropping certain provisions under the Act and adding

a few on several other offences. Filing of the charge sheet is what

has driven the present petitioner to this Court in the subject

petition.

3. Heard Smt Monica Patil, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.B. Ravikumar,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had consensual physical

relationship since July 2023 after their first meeting in July, up to

which point in time they were still on WhatsApp. When the

relationship turned sore, petitioner travels to Prayagraj and at that

time, the 2nd respondent registers a complaint before the

jurisdictional Police and on 02-11-2023 tenders a statement before

the Police making allegations of rape. The Police file a requisition to

include the offence of commission of rape on promise of marriage.

Talks of settlement are initiated by the members of the families of
6

both the parties and on 10-11-2023 the marriage is said to be

registered. On 14-12-2023 the complainant registers another crime

against all the family members that she was forced at the marriage

Registrar's office to give her consent to marriage. This becomes a

crime at Prayaraj in Crime No.600 of 2023 for several offences. The

Allahabad High Court has stayed all further proceedings in the

crime registered at Prayagraj. The learned counsel would submit

that the entire present proceedings right from the complaint till

filing of the charge sheet is gross abuse of the process of law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent/complainant would vehemently contend taking this

Court through elaborate statement of objections and certain

documents, photographs all to buttress his submission that all the

offences are committed by the petitioner and in fact the offences

under Section 376 and 420 of the IPC ought to have been included

while filing the charge sheet, but they have been dropped. He

would submit that the Police have filed a charge sheet and the trial

must be permitted to go on with liberty to the concerned Court to
7

add offences under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC also and seeks

dismissal of the subject petition.

6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N.

Jagadeesha would also take this Court through the charge sheet

and submit that the issue between the two revolves round maze of

facts. The allegations in the charge sheet are quite vivid for the

offences that are laid. He would also seek dismissal of the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are

all a matter of record or as narrated in the petition. The factum of

relationship between the two and blossoming of the relationship

between the accused and the complainant is again a matter of

record. Several narrations in the complaint being frivolous or

otherwise are narrated in the petition. Since the entire issue has
8

now triggered from registration of the complaint, I deem it

appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:

"Date: 18-10-2023.
To
The Inspector,
Chandra Layout Police Station,
Chandra Layout, Bangalore.

Sub: Regarding of private videos and photos by
assuring to marry and also threatening to
release all the contents on internet, life
threat following me in Chandra Layout and
Anubhavanagar.

Respected Sir,

With reference to the above-mentioned subject, person
by name Abhishek Mishra originally resident of Allahabad (U.P.)
had promised me of marriage and had recorded my private
videos and clicked many of my private pics of recently he has
shifted from Delhi to Bangalore and unknowingly started to
follow me and some of my friends, in one such incident he
followed a friend of mine on 15th of October at around 2.15 pm.
At 60 feet road in Chandra Layout to his room and he started to
show my private content to him, in response to which with the
highly disturbed mind my friend asked him to not show things
and he did not stopped, my friend in order to make him stop
told that do not do these things in front of me and in order to
trap him to delete all things and inform police, he told that I
have married her so do not do this and delete all videos and
photos. To trap him he said that I need a copy of all this you
meet me again. My friend wanted to inform Police by this time
and get him arrested but it so happened that after that meet he
came to meet my friend the other day (16-10-2023) around
7.00 p.m. ETA Mall Binnypet, he gave photos of us and certain
my friends stuffs and while leaving he told he would come again
with the videos and photos in a pen drive, that evening my
friend came to me and revealed all the conversation he had with
Abhishek Mishra, who I called him and asked him where he is
9

presently he said that he is in Allahabad when I told him that
why are you lying I got to know you are in Bangalore and
following my friends and show all private stuff with my friends
and his friends also. He immediately said unparliamently words
to me like, Rande, Madarchod etc. Thinking that I am
extremely disturbed and knowing that facts that he is having so
much of my private things and showing it among his friends he
is very disturbing to me.

Kindly take stringent action against him as he did all this
on the promise of getting married and on 16th of October he
denied that, he will not marry me. I extremely scared as he has
so many private stuffs and that has spoiled my life completely
and disturbed my mental peace.

I request your good self to do the needful by getting him
punished.

Hereby attaching his detail:
Name: Abhishek Mishra
Contact: 8090332889
9794302463
Thanking you,
Sd/- Pinki Sharma, Age 29
Contact: 84486444
Father name: Sohanlal Sharma
Add: 15th 3rd Floor, 4th Cross."

The complaint narrates several horrendous acts on the part of the

petitioner and those acts are alleged to be on promise of marriage.

The accused and the complainant having consensual sexual

relationship is a matter of record. The complaint then becomes a

crime in Crime No.471 of 2023 for offences punishable under

Sections 354C, 354D, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC, Section 66E of
10

the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(2)(v) of the

Act, 1989. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet

in Spl.C.C.No.1029 of 2024. The summary of the charge sheet as

obtaining in column No.17 is as follows:

"17. ೇ ನ ಸಂ ಪ ಾ ಾಂಶ

ಈ ೋ ಾ ೋಪ ಾ ಪ ಯ ನಮೂ ರುವ ಾ -1 ಂ ಶಮ !" ೋಹ" $ಾ%
ಶಮ , 28 ವಷ ರವರು ಮೂಲತಃ ಉತರಖಂಡ ಾಜ.ದ 0ೆಹ ಾಡೂ", ಚಕ3ತ, vÀÆå4 5ಾ 6ಾ7ದು8,
9ಾ :ೆಂಗಳ=>ನ ಚಂದ3$ೇಔ@ A ೕB Cಾ ಾ 5ಾ. ಯ ಮೂಡಲDಾಳ., ಅನುಭವನಗರ ದ ,
Dಾವ ತGಮ ಎಂಬುವರ ಮJೆಯ :ಾKLೆ ಾರ ಾ7 5ಾಸMಾK ೊಂKರುNಾ ೆ. ಾ -1 ರವರು
ಪ>Oಷ PಾQLೆ ೇ>ದ PೋJಾR> PಾQLೆ (ಉತರಖಂಡ) ೇ>ದವ ಾ7ರುNಾ ೆ.

2) ಪ3ಕರಣದ ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ ಅU ೇV WXಾ3 !" JೇY ಕುMಾZ WXಾ3, 28
ವಷ ರವರು ಮೂಲತಃ ಉತರಪ3 ೇಶದ ಪ36ಾ[ ಾ\ 5ಾ 6ಾ7ರುNಾ ೆ. ಎ-1 :ಾ3ಹ]ಣ PಾQLೆ
(ಉತರಪ3 ೇಶ) ೇ>ದವ ಾ7ರುNಾ ೆ.

3) Jಾಂಕ: 19-01-2023 ರಂದು ಾ -1 ರವರು ಚಂದ3$ೇಔ@ A ೕB Cಾ ೆLೆ 9ಾಜ ಾ7,
4ೕKರುವ ೈಬರಹದ ದೂ>ನ _ೕ ೆLೆ ಾ -24 ²æÃ gÀ«Ã±ï, ¦.J¸ï.L, gÀªÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÄÀ ß
¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ oÁuÁ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.471/2023 PÀ®A 354(r), 354 (¹), 509, 504, 506 ಐ ಮತು
ಕಲಂ 66(ಇ) ಐ. . ಾb8 >ೕತ. ಪ3ಕರಣ ಾಖ ರುNಾ ೆ. ಸದ> ದೂ>ನ ಾ -1 ರವರು
ಪ3ಮುಖ5ಾ7 ಆ ೋ ರುವ ಸಂ ಪNೆ: ಆ ೋ ಎ-1 ಈತನು ೆಹ ಯ ಾ8ಗ, ಾ -1 ರವರ
ಸ9ೋದ> ಾ - 11 ಅಂಜ ಶಮ ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಪ>ಚಯ5ಾ7ದು8, ಇಬcರೂ ಆQdಯ5ಾ7
ಸ Lೆeಂ ದು8, ಮದು5ೆ6ಾಗುNೇJೆಂದು ನಂ! ದು8, ಇಬcರೂ ಇರುವ fಾಸ7 ಸಮಯದ gೕhೋ
ಮತು iKjೕಗಳನುk NೆLೆದು ೊಂKರುNಾJೆ, ಾ -1 ರವರು ನಂತರ :ೆಂಗಳ=>Lೆ ಬಂದು
5ಾಸMಾK ೊಂKದು8, ಾ -1 ರವರ ೆkೕlತJಾದ ಾ -8 ಪ3mೕn ಾ\ ರವ ೊಂ Lೆ Jಾಂಕ:
15-10-2023 ರಂದು ಮ ಾ.ಹk ಸುMಾರು 2.15 ಗಂhೆಯ , ಚಂದ3$ೇಔ@ ನ ರುವ 60 ಅK ರ ೆಯ
ನ0ೆದು ೊಂಡು 9ೋಗುQರು5ಾLೆo, ಎ-1 ಈತನು lಂ:ಾ ೊಂಡು ಬಂ ದು8, ಅಲ ೇ ಇದಕೂp mದಲು
Jಾಂಕ:06-10-2023 ರಂದು ಾ -8 ರವರನುk qೇ MಾKರುವ ಎ-1 ಈತನು ನನLೆ ಸಂಬಂr ೆಲ
ವಸುಗಳನುk ಾ -8 ರವ>Lೆ ೊ ದು8, ಾ -8 ರವರ 5ಾಸದ ೊಠKಗೂ 9ೋ7ದು8, ಾ -1 ಮತು ಎ-1
ರವರು fಾಸ7 ಸಮಯದ ರುವ gೕhೋ ಮತು iKjೕಗಳನುk ಾ -8 ರವ>Lೆ Nೋ> ದು8, ಾ -8
11

ರವರು, ಾ -1 ರವರನುk i5ಾಹ5ಾ7ರುNೇJೆ, ಆ ಎಲವನೂk K ೕ@ Mಾಡು ಎಂದರೂ ೇಳ ೇeದು8,
ನಂತರ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಎ-1 ರವ>Lೆ ಕ ೆ MಾK ೇಳ$ಾ7, ಎ-1 ರವರು ಾ -1 ರವ>Lೆ ಸೂtೆ ಮುಂ0ೆ
ಎಂ!Nಾ.r ೆಟ ಪದಗvಂದ :ೈ ರುNಾJೆಂದು, 9ಾಗೂ ಆತತನ ಬv ಾ -1 ರವರ fಾಸ7 gೕhೋ
ಮತು iKjೕಗvದು8, ಅವರುಗಳನುk :ೇ ೆಯವ>Lೆ Nೋ> :ೆದ> ೆ 9ಾ ರುNಾJೆಂದು ಇNಾ.r6ಾ7
ಎ-1 ರವರ iರುದw ಾನೂನು ಕ3ಮ ಾp7 ೋ>ರುವ ದೂ ಾ7ರುತ ೆ.

4) ನಂತರ ತ4fಾr ಾ>6ಾದ ಾ -25 O3ೕ ೆ.ಎB. ಹ , .ಐ. ರವರು ತ4fೆ
ೈLೊಂKದು8, ಾ -1 ರವರು Nೋ> ದ ಸxಳ5ಾದ ಚಂದ3$ೇಔ@ A ೕB Cಾ ಾ 5ಾ. ಯ 60
ರ ೆಯ ಈ ಸxಳದ , ಪಂಚ ಾ ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -2 O3ೕ ಪ3ಜy% ಆZ ಮತು ಾ -3 O3ೕ 5ಾln Dಾ ಾ
ರವರ 9ಾಜ ಾQಯ , ಸxಳ ಪಂಚJಾ_ ಜರು7 ರುತ ೆ.

5) ಪ3ಕರಣದ ತ4fಾ ಾಲದ Jಾಂಕ:31-10-2023 ರಂದು 6ಾ ದು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -1
ರವರು 4ೕKದ ಮರು 9ೇv ೆಯ _ೕ ೆLೆ Jಾಂಕ: 02-11-2023 ರಂದು ಘನ 45Jೇ Jಾ.6ಾಲಯದ ,
45ೇ ೊಂKದು8, ಕಲಂ 376, 420 ಐ ಗಳನುk 9ೆಚು{ವ>6ಾ7 ಅಳವK ೊಂKದು8, ತ4fೆ
ಮುಂದುವ ೆ ರುತ ೆ.

6) 6ಾ ದು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -1 ರವರನುk ಾ - 18 O3ೕಮQ ಾl ಾ :ಾನು, 9ೆ|. .
8320 ರವ ೊಂ Lೆ ಇ.ಎB.ಐ. . ಆಸ}Nೆ3, ಾPಾ~ನಗರ ಇ Lೆ ಕಳ•l ೊ ದು8, ಪ3ಕರಣದ
ಆ ೋಪದ ಸಂಬಂಧ 5ೈದ. ೕಯ ಪ>ೕ•ೆLೊಳಪK ದು8, 5ೈದ. ಾದ ಾ -13 0ಾ. ¥Àæw¨sÁ gÀªÀgÄÀ
ವರ 4ೕKರುNಾ ೆ, ಸದ> ಅUDಾ3ಯ ವರ ಯ , 'There are no signs of penetrative
vaginal intercourse ------ due to delay of 1 month 27 days from the
date of last incident to reporting to the hospital JAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.11.2023 ರ
ವರ ಯ Qv ರುNಾ ೆ.

7) Jಾಂಕ: 05-01-2024 ರಂದು 6ಾ ದು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -1 ರವರನುk ಘನ 45Jೇ
ಎ ಎಂಎಂ Jಾ.6ಾಲಯದ 9ಾಜರುಪK ದು8, ಕಲಂ 164 ಆZ. . . ಅKಯ 9ೇv ೆ
ಾಖ ರುತ ೆ, ಸದ> 9ೇv ೆಯ ಾ -1 ರವರು ನುK ರುವ ಸಂ ¥ÀÛNೆ: ಸದ> ಾ -1 ರವರು ಈ
lಂ ೆ 2022Jೇ ಜನವ>ಯ ಯು. .ಎB. . ಹು ೆ8Lೆ ತ6ಾ> Mಾಡುವ ಸಲು5ಾ7 ೆಹ ಯ
5ಾಸiದ8 ಅವrಯ ಪ3ಕರಣದ ಆ ೋ 6ಾ7ರುವ ಎ-1 ಅU ೇV WXಾ3 !" JೇY ಕುMಾZ
WXಾ3, 28 ವಷ ರವರು 5ಾಸ ೆp ರೂಂ ೊKಸುವ ಮತು ಓದಲು ಬುV ಆbp iƒಾರ5ಾ7 ಾ -1
ರವರ ಸ9ೋದ> ಾ -11 ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಪ>ಚಯ5ಾ7ರುNಾ ೆ. ನಂತರ Jಾಂಕ:21-07-2023
ರಂದು 5ಾಸiದ8 ರೂಂನ 4ೕ>ನ ಅqಾವiದ8 ಾರಣ, ಎ-1 ರವರು 5ಾಸiದ8 Lೆ 9ೋ7ದು8, ಾkನ
MಾಡುQರು5ಾLೆo, gೕhೋ ಮತು iKjೕ NೆLೆದು ೊಂKದು8, ನಮ] ಕುಟುಂಬ¸ÀÜ>Lೆ 4ೕಡುವ„ ಾ7
:ೆ ರ, ಬಲವಂತ5ಾ7 ನJೊkಂ Lೆ ೈlಕ ಸಂqೋಗ MಾKರುNಾJೆ. ನಮ] fಾಸ7 ಸಮಯದ
12

iKjೕ ಮತು gೕhೋ NೆLೆದು ೊಂKರುತ ೆ. ನಂತರ ಮದು5ೆ MಾK ೊಳ•...ವ„ ಾ7 9ೇv
ನಂU ರುNಾJೆ. 23.09.2023 ರಂದು Jಾನು ಆತನ ರೂಂLೆ 9ೋ7 ಾ8ಗ ಮ ಾ.ಹk ಸುMಾರು 12.00
ಗಂhೆಯ , ಊಟ ತ> ದು8, ನಂತರ ಬಲವಂತ5ಾ7 ನನkನುk ರೂಂನ bೕ ಾQ3ಯ$ಾ
ಇ> ೊಂKದು8, ಬಲವಂತ5ಾ7 ಹಠ ಸಂqೋಗ MಾKರುNಾJೆ. Jಾನು ನಂತರ ನ0ೆ ರುವ ಘಟJೆಯನುk
ನನk ರೂಂ_@ ಆ7ದ8 ಪ3ಗQLೆ Qv ರುNೇJೆ. ನಂತರ Jಾನು Jಾಂಕ:13-09-2023 ರಂದು
:ೆಂಗಳ=>Lೆ ಬಂ ದು8, ೆkೕlತJಾದ ಪ3mೕn ಎಂಬುವJೊಂ Lೆ ನ0ೆದು ೊಂಡು 9ೋಗುQರು5ಾUÉÎ,
ನಮ]ನುk lಂ:ಾ ೊಂಡು ಬಂ ದು8, ನನk fಾಸ7 gೕhೋಗಳನುk ಪ3mೕn ರವ>Lೆ
Nೋ> ರುNಾJೆ. Jಾಂಕ: 24-10-2023 ರಂದು Jಾನು ಉತರಪ3 ೇಶದ ಪ36ಾ[ ಾ\ Lೆ 9ೋ7ದು8,
ಎ-1 ರವರ Nಾe >ೕNಾ WXಾ3, ರವ>Lೆ gೕ" MಾK iಷಯವJೆk$ಾ 9ೇvರುNೇJೆ, ಎ-1 ರವರ
Nಾe ರವರು ಾ -1 ರವ>Lೆ - PಾQ4ಂದJೆ MಾKರುNಾ ೆ, Jಾಂಕ: 07-11-2023 ರಂದು ಎ-1
ರವರ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಾ -4 ರವರು ಾ -1 ರವರ ಸಂಪಕ ೆp ಬಂ ದು8, ೆlÄè_ಂ@ MಾK ೊಳ...ಲು
9ೇvದರು. ಆಗ Jಾನು ಅವರನುk ೇvದು8, ಎ-1 ರವರ ಬveರುವ ನನk ಎ$ಾ fಾಸ7 gೕhೋ ಮತು
iKjೕ ೊಡುವಂNೆ 9ೇvರುNೇJೆ. Jಾಂಕ:08-11-2023 ಎ-1 ರವರ Aೕಷಕರು ಸಂಪಕ ೆp
ಬಂ ದು8, ಮದು5ೆ MಾK ೊಳ•..., ಒ } ೊಂKದು8 ನನkನುk ಪ36ಾ[ ಾ\ ನ ರುವ i5ಾಹ
Jೋಂದ ಾr ಾ> ಕˆೇ>Lೆ ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು 9ೋ7ದು8, i5ಾಹ Jೋಂದ‰ MಾK ರುNಾ ೆ. ನಂತರ
ನನk fಾಸ7 gೕhೋ ಮತು iKjೕ ಇದ8 ಅU ೇV ನ $ಾ.Š hಾŠ, m:ೈ% gೕ", Dೆ" 0ೆ‹Œ
ಮತು 9ಾ• KBp ೊ ರುNಾ ೆ. ಸದ> Mಾ ೇ\ ಸ Ž ೇ@ ನ , Jಾವ„ ಮದು5ೆ6ಾದ
Jಾಂಕವನುk 12-08-2023 ಎಂದು ನಮೂ ದು8, ನನLೆ ಆಶ{ಯ 5ಾ7ದು8, ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ Jಾನು ದೂರು
ಾಖ ರುNೇJೆ ಎಂದು ಇNಾ.r6ಾ7ರುತ ೆ.

8) Jಾಂಕ:08-01-2024 ರಂದು ಘನ 45Jೇ ಎ ಎಂಎಂ Jಾ.6ಾಲಯ ೆp 45ೇದJೆ
MಾK ೊಂKದು8, ಪ3ಕರಣದ 9ೆಚು{ವ>6ಾ7 ಕಲಂ 3((1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(1)(z), 3(2)(v) SC/ST
(POA) Act UÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß WÀ£À ¹¹ºÉZï-71£ÉÃ
Jಾ.6ಾಲಯ ೆp ವLಾ ವ ೆ 4ೕಡುವಂNೆ ೋ>ರುತ ೆ.

9) ಉಪ A ೕB ಆಯುಕರು, ಪO{ಮ iqಾಗ, :ೆಂಗಳ=ರು ನಗರ ರವರ ಆ ೇಶ ಸಂfೆ.:
ಅಪ ಾಧ/9ೆ|. ./07ಎ/K (ಪ)/2024 Jಾಂಕ:07-01-2024 ರ _ೕ ೆLೆ ಾ -26 ಭರ• ಎB.
ೆK•, ಸ9ಾಯಕ A ೕB ಆಯುಕರು, :ಾ.ಟ ಾಯನಪ„ರ ಉಪ iqಾಗ ಆದ Jಾನು ವLಾ ವ ೆ
ಪ0ೆದು ೊಂಡು ತ4fೆ ಮುಂದುವ ೆ ರುತ ೆ.

10) ಅNಾ.ƒಾರ5ೆಂದು 9ೇvರುವ ೆಹ ಯ ಸxಳ ಮತು PಾQ4ಂದJೆ ಎಂದು 9ೇvರುವ
ಉತರ ಪ3 ೇಶದ ಪ36ಾ[ ಸxಳಗಳ ಪಂಚJಾ_ ಮತು ತ4fೆಯ ಇತ ೆ ಅಗತ. ಕ3ಮಗಳನುk
ೈLೊಂಡು ಬರುವಂNೆ ಾ -23, O3ೕಮQ i ಾ. ಎಂ.i, .ಎB.ಐ., :ಾ.ಟ ಾಯನಪ„ರ A ೕB Cಾ ೆ
13

ಮತು ಬcಂ O3ೕ ಮು4 ಾಜು ಎ%.ಎ"., . . 9306 ರವ>Lೆ 'ಾಪನ 4ೕKದು8 ಸದ> ಅr ಾ>ಗಳ•
9ೋ7ದು8, Jಾಂಕ 07-02-2024 ರಂದು ಾ -1 ರವರು Nೋ> ದ PಾQ4ಂದJೆ ಆ ೋಪದ ಸxಳ5ಾದ
ಆ ೋ ಎ-1 ರವರ 5ಾಸದ ಮJೆಯ itಾಸ5ಾದ ಕನ % ಗಂ\ A ೕB Cಾ ಾ 5ಾ. ಯ
Nೆ 6ಾZ ಗಂ\, ೈ$ಾY ಪ„>, ƒಾಂzÀÄàZ ಸ$ೋ>, ಮJೆ ನಂ. 145!/21/3Pೆ/1 ಇದು ¨ÁV®Ä
ºÁQzÀÄÝ, !ೕಗ 9ಾ ದ8 4Wತ ಮJೆ ಮುಂ ೆ ಪಂƒಾಯು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -4 ಮತು ಾ -5 ರವರ
9ಾಜ ಾQಯ , ಸxvೕಯ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ÀgÀ ºÁdgÁwAiÀÄ°è ಸxಳ ಪಂಚJಾ_ ಜರು7 ರುತ ೆ. ಅ , ಾ -1
ರವರು ಸ]ಳವನುk Nೋ> ದು8, ಮJೆಯ ಒಳLೆ ºÁ®ß°è PಾQ4ಂದJೆ ಆ7ರುತ ೆ ಎಂದು 9ೇvರುNಾ ೆ.
ಾ -1 ರವರು -1 ರವ ೊಂ Lೆ i5ಾಹ Jೋಂದ ೆ6ಾ7ದು8, ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ದೂ>ನ ಬLೆo, ಾ -1
ರವರು ಉತರಪ3 ೇಶದ ಕನ % ಗಂ\ ನ , Jಾಂಕ: 14-12-2023 ರಂದು ಾಖ ರುವ ಪ3.ವ.ವರ
ಸಂfೆ.: 600/2023 ಕಲಂ 419, 420, 467, 468 ಐ ಪ3ಕರಣದ ಾಖ$ೆಗಳನುk Cಾ ೆeಂದ
ಪ0ೆದು ೊಂKರುತ ೆ.

11) Jಾಂಕ:08-02-2024 ರಂದು ಾ -1 ರವರು Nೋ> ದ ಬಲವಂತದ $ೈಂ7ಕ
ಸಂqೋಗ ಸ]ಳ5ಾದ ೆಹ ಯ ಕ ೋ% qಾ[ A ೕB Cಾ ಾ 5ಾ. ಯ iಷು' ಮಂ ರ Mಾ[ ,
:ಾ$ಾ~ _Kಕ%R ಹQರiರುವ ಾ -12 ರವ>Lೆ ೇ>ದ ಕಟ ಡ ಸಂfೆ.:6ಎ/48 ಇದರ . ಮೂರJೇ
ಮಹKಯ ರುವ ೊಠK ಸಂfೆ.: 02 ರ ಾ -6 ಮತು ಾ -7 ರವರ 9ಾಜ ಾQಯ , ಕಟ ಡದ
ಉಸು5ಾ> ಾ -12 ಮತು ಸxvೕಯ A ೕಸರ 9ಾಜ ಾQಯ ಸxಳ ಪಂಚJಾ_ ಜರು7 ರುತ ೆ.

12) 6ಾ ದು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -1 ರವರು Jಾಂಕ:31-10-2023 ರಂದು Cಾ ೆLೆ
9ಾಜ ಾ7ದು8, ಆ ೋ ಎ-1 ಈತನು ಾ -1 ರವ>Lೆ ಸಂಬಂr ೆ8ಂದು ಾ -1 ರವರ ೆkೕlತ ಾ -8
ರವ>Lೆ ೊಟು 9ೋ7ದ8Jೆಂದು 9ೇvದು8, 9ಾಜರುಪK ದ 15 gೕhೋಗಳ•, Lಾ~ನ ಬtೆಗಳ• ಅದರ
ೆಲವ„ ಒ0ೆದು9ೋ7ರುತ5ೆ. ಉMಾLೋ%• ijೕ$ೆ, ಕಪ„}ಬಣ'ದ ಾಚ, 16 ~! Dೆ" 0ೆ‹Œ ಗಳನುk
ಾ -8 ಮತು ಾ -9 ರವರ 9ಾಜ ಾQಯ ಅMಾನತು ಪಂಚJಾ_ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ವಶ ೆp
ಪ0ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಸyತು ಪnÖ ಸಂfೆ.: 116/2023 ರ ಅಳವK ರುತ ೆ.

13) ಆ ೋ ಎ-1 ರವರ ಕ0ೆeಂದ ಪ0ೆದು ೊಂKದು8, ಪ3ಕಣದ ತ4fೆLೆ ಅಗತ.iರುವ ಾ -
1 ರವರು fಾಸ7 iKjೕ, gೕhೋ, ಆKjೕ ಮತು ƒಾ@ ಗv5ೆbಂದು 9ೇv ಾ -1 ರವರು
Jಾಂಕ:06-03-2023 ರಂದು 9ಾಜರುಪK ದ 01) 01- HP Laptop Black color, Serial
No: CNF0104YPJ, 2) 01-HP Laptop, Grey color, Serial No. 00178-139-
418-372, 3) 01 - Dell Laptop, Black color, Serial No. HY6YMP1, 4)01- i
phone-7 mobile phone red color, locked. 5) 01-E-phone-12 mobile
phone- light blue color, locked. 6)01- TOSHIBA -500GB external hard
disc. 7)01-Sandisk Ultra USB 3.0 - 128GB -Pen drive, 8)01- Sandisk
Ultra USB 3.0 - 128GB - Pen drive, 9)01-Sandisk-Cruzer Blade 128 GB
pen drive, 10) 01-Sandisk-Cruzer Blade 16 GB pen drive UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ಾ -9
14

ಮತು ಾ -10 ರವರ 9ಾಜ ಾQಯ ಅMಾನತು ಪಂಚJಾ_ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ವಶ ೆp ಪ0ೆದು ೊಂಡು
ಸyತುಪnÖ ಸಂfೆ.: 45/2024 ರ ಅಳವK ರುತ ೆ.

14) ಆ ೋ ಪNೆLಾ7 ಾ -22 O3ೕ QDೆ}ೕ ಾyW, .ಎB.ಐ., ಾ -21 O3ೕ ಗPೇಂದ3,
ಎ.ಎB.ಐ., ಾ -17 O3ೕ Oವಪ} ಾ3ಮ¥Àà ಸಜ"", . . 15385 ರವರನುk ಕಳ•l ದು8, ಆ ೋ
ಪNೆ6ಾಗ ೇeದು8, ವರ 4ೕKರುNಾ ೆ.
15) ಾ -1 ರವರು ಮತು ಎ-1 ರವರು i5ಾಹ Jೋಂದ46ಾ7ರುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಾ -15,
ಚತುಬು \ Dಾಂ0ೆ, ಸ" >~ ಾ•Z, ಸದZ -1, ಪ36ಾ[ ಾ\, ಉತರ ಪ3 ೇY ರವ>ಂದ ಾಖ$ೆ
ಪ0ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಪ>Oೕ ರುತ ೆ. ಾ -1 ಮತು ಎ-1 ರವರು Jಾಂಕ:12-08-2023 ರಂದು
i5ಾಹ5ಾ7ದು8, Jಾಂಕ: 10-11-2023 ರಂದು i5ಾಹ Jೋಂದ‰ MಾK ೊಂKರುವ„ ಾ7
ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತ ೆ.

16) ಎ-1 ಈತನು ಘನ i% Jಾ.6ಾಲಯದ 3Wನ% WಸR$ೇ4ಯB ನಂ.
11973/2023 ರ ಷರತು ಬದw 4>ೕ- ಾ PಾWೕನು ಪ0ೆದು ೊಂಡು Jಾಂಕ:08-01-2024 ರಂದು
Cಾ ೆLೆ 9ಾಜ ಾ7ದು8, ಬಂಧಪತ3 ಕ3ಮ ಜರು7 ರುತ ೆ. ನಂತರ ಆ ೋ ಯನುk ಾ -19 O3ೕ
ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À ~.ಎB., 9ೆ|. . 12031 ರವ ೊಂ Lೆ i ೊ ೕ>6ಾ ಆಸ}Nೆ3Lೆ Jಾಂಕ:09-01-2024
ರಂದು ಕಳ•l ದು8, 5ೈದ. ಾದ ಾ -14 qÁ. £ÀgÉÃY ಕುMಾZ ರವರು ಪ3ಕರಣದ ಸಂಬಂಧ 5ೈದ. ೕಯ
ಪ>ೕ•ೆLೊಳಪK ದು8, ವರ 4ೕKದು8, There is nothing to surest that the person is
incapable of performing sexual intercourse ಎಂದು ಅUDಾ3ಯ Qv ರುNಾ ೆ.

17) ಪ3ಕರಣದ ಕಲಂ 376, 420 ಐ ಗಳನುk ೈ!ಡಲು ಾರಣ:

ಾ -1 ಂ ಶಮ ರವರು ತ4fಾ ಾಲದ Qv ರುವಂNೆ 2023Jೇ ಜು$ೈ ಮತು ಆಗB
Qಂಗvನ , ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ ಯ ೆಹ ಯ ಕ ೋ% qಾUÀß°èರುವ ಾ -12 ರವರ ಕಟ ಡದ ನ ೊಠK
ಸಂfೆ.:2 ರ , ಬಲವಂತ5ಾ7 $ೈಂ7ಕ ಸಂqೋಗ MಾKರುNಾ ೆ, ಮದು5ೆ6ಾಗುವ„ ಾ7 ನಂU
mೕಸ MಾKರುNಾ ೆಂದು ಆ ೋ ರುNಾ ೆ. ಆದ ೆ ಸದ> ಘಟJೆಯ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇದುವ ೆಗೂ
6ಾವ„ ೇ ಾ•ಾ--ಾರಗಳನೂk 4ೕಡರುವ„ ಲ,, ಾ -15, ಪ36ಾ[ ಾdß ಸ" >~ ಾ•Z ರವರು
ದೃ™ೕಕ> 4ೕKರುವ ಾಖ$ೆಗಳನುk ಪ>Oೕ ಾಗ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಎ-1 ರವರನುk Jಾಂಕ: 12-08-
2023 ರಂದು i5ಾಹ5ಾ7ದು8, Jಾಂಕ:10-11-2023 ರಂದು i5ಾಹವನುk Jೋಂದ‰ MಾK ರುತ ೆ.
ಸದ> ಾಖ$ೆಗಳ ಪ3 ಾರ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಎ-1 ರವರ ಪQk6ಾ7ರುNಾ ೆ. ಘಟJೆ ನ0ೆದು ಹಲ5ಾರು
Qಂಗಳ•ಗಳ ನಂತರ ಘಟJೆ ನ0ೆ ೆbಂದು 9ೇvರುNಾ ೆ. ಇದುವ ೆಗೂ ಎ ಯೂ ಕೂಡ ದೂರು
4ೕKರುವ„ ಲ. ಘಟJೆ6ಾದ ಕೂಡ$ೇ xvೕಯ A ೕB Cಾ ೆಯ ದೂರು 4ೕಡಬಹು ತು. ಆದ ೆ
4ೕKರುವ„ ಲ. ಅಲ ೇ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ ಯ ೊಠKLೆ Nಾ5ಾ7bೕ ಹಲ5ಾರು ಸಲ ಬಂದು
15

ನಪšQ ಇರುQದು8, ಸಮNೋಷ ಂದ$ೇ 9ೊರ9ೋಗುQದ8ರು. ಇ ಯವ ೆಗೂ ಎಂ ಗೂ
ಬಲವಂತ5ಾ7 $ೈಂ7ಕ ಸಂqೋಗ MಾKರುNಾJೆ ಅಥ5ಾ Nೊಂದ ೆ ೊ ಾ8 ೆಂದು
9ೇv ೊಂKರುವ„ ಲ, ಎಂದು ಾ -12 ರವರ iƒಾರ ೆeಂದ Qvದುಬಂ ರುತ ೆ. ಾ -1 ರವರು
9ಾಜರುಪK ರುವ Dೆ£ÉØçöÊŒ ನ ರುವ ಾ -1 ಮತು ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ ರವರ ನಡು5ೆ ನ0ೆ ರುವ iKjೕ
ಾ%, iKjೕ, ಆKjೕ ಮತು ƒಾ@ ಗಳನುk ಬcಂ ಾ -16 ರವರು ಪ>Oೕ ವರ 4Kದು8,
ಾ -1 ರವ ೇ ಪ3ƒೋ ಸುವಂತಹವ„ಗtಾ7ರುವ„ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತ ೆ. ತ4fಾ ಾಲದ ಯೂ ಕೂಡ
ಅNಾ.ƒಾರ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಆ ೋಪ ದೃಢಪKಸುವಂತಹ ಾ•ಾ--ಾರಗಳ• ಲಭ.5ಾ7ರುವ„ ಲ,
ಾ ಾರ ೆಂದು 9ೇvರುವ ಪ3ಗQಯವರ iವರ 4ೕಡಲು ಾ -1 ರವರು lಂಜ> ದು8, ಅವರನುk
iƒಾರ ೆLೆ ಕ ೆತರಲು ಾ$ಾವ ಾಶ ೋ>ರುNಾ ೆ. ಆದುದ>ಂದ ಪ3ಕರಣದ ಕಲಂ 376 ಮತು 420
ಐ ಗಳನುk ೈ!ಡ$ಾ7ರುತ ೆ.

18) ಪ3ಕರಣದ 3((1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(1)(z), SC/ST (POA) Act ಗಳನುk ೈ!ಡಲು ಾರಣ:

ಪ3ಕರಣದ ನ ಎ-1 ರವ ೊಂ Lೆ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಅ£ÉÆåÃನ.5ಾ7bೕ ಇದು8, ಾ -1 ಮತು ಎ-
1 ರವರು ತಮ] PಾQಗಳ ಬLೆo ಪರಸ}ರ 9ೇv ೊಂKರುವ„ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುವ„ ಲ. ಇಬcರು PಾQ
ಎ ಯೂ LೊQತು ಎಂದು Dಾ3ಥWಕ5ಾ7 ಾ -1 ರವರು 4ೕKರುವ ದೂ>ನ ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುವ„ ಲ,
ಾ -1 ರವರು PಾQ4ಂದJೆ6ಾ7ರುವ„ ಾ7 9ೇvರುವ ಸ]ಳವ„ ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ ಯ 5ಾಸದ ಮJೆ6ಾದ
ಉತರ ಪ3 ೇಶದ ಪ36ಾ[ ಾ\ ನಗರದ A ೕB Cಾ ಾ 5ಾ. ಯ Nೆ 6ಾZ ಗಂ\, ೈ$ಾY ಪ„>,
ƒಾಂzÀÄàZ ಸ$ೋ>, ಮJೆ ನಂ. 145©/21/3Pೆ/1 ಈ ಮJೆಯ ಒಳLೆ 9ಾ% ನ , ಎಂದು 9ೇv ಸxಳ
Nೋ> ದು8, ಸದ> ಸxಳವ„ ಮJೆಯ ಒಳ7ನ ಸxಳ5ಾ7ರುತ ೆ.

18(1) 5ಾಸದ ಮJೆಯ ಒಳಗ0ೆ 9ಾಲk ಆ ೋ ಗಳ• 6ಾ ದು ಾರ>Lೆ PಾQ 4ಂದJೆ
MಾKರುNಾ ೆಂದು ದೂ>ನ ಆ ೋ ದು8, ಇದನುk ಗಮ4 ಾಗ ಮತು ಸxಳವನುk ಖುದು8 ಪ>OೕಲJೆ
MಾK ಾಗ ಘಟJೆ ನ0ೆದ ಸxಳವ„ ಾವ ಜ4ಕ ಸxಳ5ಾ7ಲ ೆ, ಾವ ಜ4ಕ5ಾ7 6ಾ Lೆ
PಾQ4ಂದJೆ ಆ7ಲ ೆ ಇರುವ„ದ>ಂದ ಪ>Oಷ PಾQ ಮತು ಪ>Oಷ ಪಂಗಡದ ೌಜ ನ. ತ0ೆ ಾb8
ಕಲಂ 3(1) (10) ಎ R/ಎ -1989 ಆV , ಅKಯ ಅಪ ಾಧ5ಾಗುವ„ ಲ 5ೆಂದು Jಾಂಕ:01-01-
2016Jೇ ಾ 4ಂದ Pಾ>Lೊಂಡ THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED
TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 gÀ PÀ®A
3(1)(J¸ï) ರ abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe by caste name in any place within public view ಎಂದು
ಉ$ೇŸ ರುವ„ದ>ಂದ ಈ ೇ ನ ಆ ೋ ತರು 6ಾ Lೆ 6ಾವ„ ೇ ಾವ ಜ4ಕ ಸxಳದ PಾQ
4ಂದJೆ MಾK ಅಪMಾನLೊvಸ ೆ ಇರುವ„ದ>ಂದ ಆ ೋ ತರ iರುದw ಎ R/ಎ ಕಲಂಗಳ• ಅನyಯ
16

ಆಗುವ„ ಲ. ಅಲ ೇ 6ಾ ದುದು ಾರರು ಮತು ಆ ೋ ತ>ಬcರೂ ಪ>O ಟ PಾQLೆ
ೇ>ದವ ಾ7ದು8, PಾQ 4ಂದJೆ ಅ£Àéಯ5ಾಗುವ„ ಲ.

18(2) ¥ÀæPÀgÀ£ÀzÀ vÀ¤SÁ ಾಲದ 6ಾವ„ ೇ ಪ3ಕರಣವ„ ಅಪ ಾಧ5ಾಗುತ ೆbೕ ಅಥ5ಾ
ಇಲ5ೇ ಎಂಬ ಬLೆo ತ4fಾr ಾ>ಯವರು ಸು 3ೕಂ ೋ@ , ಉಚ{ Jಾ.6ಾಲಯಗಳ• 9ಾಗೂ ಇತ ೆ
Jಾ.6ಾಲಯಗಳ Qೕಪ„ ಗಳನುk ಪ„ಕರಣದ ದೂ>ನ 9ಾಗೂ ಲಭ.iರುವ ಸಂಗ3l ದ ಾಖ$ೆಗಳ
PೊNೆಯ Nಾtೆ Mಾಡ$ೇ:ೇ ಾಗುತ ೆ. ಇದು qಾರತ ಸಂi--ಾನದ ಅನುƒೆ¡ೕದ 141, 144ರ ಪ3 ಾರ
ತ4fಾr ಾ>ಯವರ ºÉÆuÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CzÀgÀAvÉ The Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgement in, JT 2004(3) SC 7 M.A.Kuttappan V.E.Krishnan Nayanar
and Anr, Criminal Appeal no. 450 of 1997 (From the Judgement and
Order dated 21-02-97 of the Kerala High Court Crl.M.C. no.2192 of
1996 as follows)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Attrocities) Act 1989- Section 3(1)(x) --Protection of Civil Rights Act
1955 - Section 7(1)(d) - offence under Act 1955 - Cognizance of
Accused only uttering complaints as "Harijan" Nothing to show that by
these words, accused insulted or attempted to insult. Held that section
7 of Act of 1955 was not attracted JA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

18(3) ಅಲ ೇ PಾQ 4ಂದJೆಯ ಕೃತ.ವ„ ಮJೆಯ/ ಕಟ ಡದ ಒಳಗ0ೆ ಜರು7ದ8 ಎ R/ಎ
ಕಲಂ 3(1)(ಆZ)(ಎB) ತ ೕರುಗಳ• ಅನyಯ5ಾಗುವ„ ಲ ಎಂಬ ಬLೆo Mಾನ. ಕJಾ ಟಕದ ಉಚ{
Jಾ.6ಾಲಯವ„ 3Wನ% ಷ" ನಂ-3597/2022 ರ , >NೇY DಾಯB iರುದw ಕJಾ ಟಕ ಾಜ.
ಪ3ಕರಣದ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡANೆ ಅUDಾ3ಯಪ ರುತ ೆ. As per the FIR, the allegations of
abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is
not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public
(not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the
house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in
any place public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses
appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it
could not be said that those were the persons present within the four
walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place, within
the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of
this Court in Swaran Singh [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435:
(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527], it cannot be said to be a place within public
view ಎಂ ರುತ ೆ. ಆದುದ>ಂದ, ಪ3ಕಣರಣದ ಕಲಂ 3((1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(1)(z), SC/ST
(POA) Act ಗಳನುk ೈ!ಡ$ಾ7 ೆ.

20) ಾ -1 ರವರ ೆkೕlತ ಾದ ಾ -8 ಪ3mೕn ಾ\, ಆ ೋ ಎ-1 ರವರ Nಾe
ಸ9ೋದರJಾದ ಾ -4 ಅಜ¢ Jಾ ಾಯ£ Q5ಾ>, . ಾ -1 ರವರ ಸ9ೋದ> ಾ -11 ಅಂಜ
17

ಶಮ ರವರ 9ೇv ೆಗvಂದ ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುವಂNೆ ಾ -1 ರವ ೆLೆ ಎ-1 ರವರು ಮದು5ೆ6ಾಗುವ„ ಾ7
ನಂU , mೕಸ MಾKರುNಾ ೆಂದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತ ೆ, ಆದ ೆ ಾ -15 ಪ36ಾ[ ಾಜ.: ಸ"
>~ ಾ•Z ರವರು 4ೕKರುವ ಾಖ$ೆಯಂNೆ ಾ -1 ರವರನುk ಎ-1 ರವರು
i5ಾಹJೋಂದ‰6ಾ7ರುNಾ ೆ

19) PÀ®A 354(r), 354(¹), 509, 504 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 66 (E) Ln PÁAiÉÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3(2)(
«) (zËdð£Àå vÀqÉ) PÁAiÉÄÝ CrAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆÃ¥À ದೃಢಪ ರುವ„ದು;

ಾ -1 ರವರಯ ಉತರಖಂಡ ಾಜ.ದ PೋJಾR> PಾQLೆ ೇ>ದವ ಾ7ದು8, PೋJಾR>
PಾQಯು ಪ>Oಷ ಪಂಗಡದ (ಎB. .) ವಗ ೆp ಬರುತ ೆ, ಎB. . ವಗ ದ PೋJಾR> PಾQLೆ ೇ>ದ
ಾ -1 ರವ ೊಂ Lೆ ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ ಯು ಅ£ÉÆåÃ£Àå5ಾ7ದು8, ಇಬcರೂ fಾಸ76ಾ7ದ8 ಸಮಯದ
9ಾಗೂ ಾ -1 ರವರ fಾಸ7 gೕhೋ ಮತು iKjೕ MಾK ೊಂKದು8, ƒಾ@ MಾKದು8,
ಅವ„ಗಳನುk ೋ¤ಯ% WೕK6ಾದ ಹಂ¥ ೊಳ•...ವ„ ಾ7 9ಾಗೂ ಾ -1 ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆp
4ೕಡುNೇJೆಂದು :ೆದ> , ಎB. . PಾQLೆ ೇ>ರುವ ಮತು ಮltೆ6ಾ7ರುವ ಾ -1 ರವರ Lೌರವ ೆp
ದ ೆp ತಂ ರುವ„ದು ಮತು :ೆದ> ೆ ಆ ರುವ„ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ದು8, ಇದ>ಂದ ಾ -1 ರವ>Lೆ
ಅJಾ.ಯ5ಾ7ರುತ ೆ. ಆ ಾರಣ ಂದ ಪ3ಕರಣದ ಕಲಂ 3(2)(i) ( ೌಜ ನ. ತ0ೆ) ಾb8ಯು
ಾ•ಾ--ಾರಗvಂದ ದೃಢಪ ರುತ ೆ. ªÀÄ»¼ÉAiÀÄ R¸ÀV ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «rAiÉÆÃ
ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ZÁmïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀæ»¹lÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ©vÀÛj¸ÀÄªÀÅzÁV ¨É¢j¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¥sÁ¯ÉÆÃ ªÀiÁr, ಅವMಾನ MಾKದು8, :ೈದು, :ೆದ> ೆ 9ಾ ರುವ„ದು ಾ•ಾ--ಾರಗvಂದ
ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುವ„ದ>ಂದ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ 354(K), 354(¹), 509, 504, 506 ಐ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ಕಲಂ 66 (ಇ)
ಐ. . ಾb8 CrAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆÃ¥À zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

ಒhಾ ೆ6ಾ7 ಸದ> ಪ3ಕರಣದ ತ4fಾ ಾಲದ ಸಂಗ3l ರುವ ಾPÁëöå ಾರ, ಾ ಾರರ
9ೇv ೆಗಳ•, ಸಂಗ3l ರುವ ಾಖ$ೆಗಳ• 9ಾಗೂ ತ¦ರ ಅUDಾ3ಯ ವರ ಗಳ ಆ--ಾರದ _ೕ$ೆ
ಪ3ಕರಣದ ನ ಆ ೋ ಎ-1 ಅU ೇV WXಾ3 ಈತನು ಕಲಂ 354(K), 354( ), 509, 504, 506
ಐ , ಕಲಂ 66 (ಇ) ಐ. . ಾb8 ಮತು, ಕಲಂ 3(2) (ಎ) ( ೌಜ ನ. ತ0ೆ) ಾb8 ಅKಯ ಆ ೋಪವ„
ದಢಪ ರುತ ೆ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆÃ¦ J-1 C©üµÉÃPï «Ä±Áæ gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A
354(K), 354(¹), 509, 504, 506, ಐ , ಕಲಂ 66 (ಇ) ಐ. . ಾb8 ಮತು ಕಲಂ 3(2) (i)
( ೌಜ ನ. ತ0ೆ) ಾb8 ಅKಯ ಈ ೋ ಾ ೋಪ ಾ ಪ ಯನುk ಘನ Jಾ.6ಾಲಯ ೆp ಸ ರುತ ೆ"

The summary of charge sheet contains vivid details of what the

allegations are. Crime for offences punishable under Sections 376
18

and 420 of the IPC were also directed to be investigated into. While

dropping those crimes, several offences under the Act have been

dropped.

9. What is alleged now pursuant to filing of the charge sheet

is, for the following offences:

"Sections 354-C, 354-D, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC;
Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989."

(Emphasis added)

The offences are the ones punishable under Sections 354-C, 354-D,

504, 506 and 509 of the IPC. These sections read as under:

"354-C. Voyeurism.--Any man who watches, or
captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act
in circumstances where she would usually have the
expectation of not being observed either by the
perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the
perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished
on first conviction with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than one
year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also
be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or
subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than three
years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
19

Explanation 1.--For the purpose of this section, "private
act" includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in
the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide
privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are
exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a
lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind
ordinarily done in public.

Explanation 2.--Where the victim consents to the capture
of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third
persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such
dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.

354-D. Stalking.--(1) Any man who--

(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to
contact such woman to foster personal
interaction repeatedly despite a clear
indication of disinterest by such woman; or

(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet,
email or any other form of electronic
communication,

commits the offence of stalking:

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if
the man who pursued it proves that--

(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or
detecting crime and the man accused of stalking
had been entrusted with the responsibility of
prevention and detection of crime by the State; or

(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any
condition or requirement imposed by any person
under any law; or

(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was
reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be
punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either
20

description for a term which may extend to three years, and
shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or
subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be
liable to fine."
... ... ...

504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and
thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it
to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the
public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
... ... ...

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever
commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--
and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause
the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to
impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
... ... ...
509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the
modesty of a woman.--Whoever, intending to insult the
modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or
gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or
sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be
seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such
woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years, and also with fine."

(Emphasis supplied)
21

Section 354-C deals with voyeurism. The allegation against a man

who watches or captures image of a woman engaging in a private

act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation

of not being observed. Section 354-D deals with stalking. Any man

who follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such

woman to foster personal interaction or monitors the woman on the

internet, email or electronic communication commits offence of

stalking. The other offences are Section 504 and 506 of the IPC

viz., breach of peace and criminal intimidation and finally the IPC

offences end with Section 509. Section 509 deals with gesture and

intending to insult modesty of a woman.

10. Under the Information Technology Act what is alleged is

Section 66E. Section 66E reads as follows:

"66-E. Punishment for violation of privacy.--
Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes
or transmits the image of a private area of any person
without his or her consent, under circumstances
violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished
with imprisonment which may extend to three years or
with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section--
22

(a) "transmit" means to electronically send a visual image
with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;

(b) "capture", with respect to an image, means to
videotape, photograph, film or record by any means;

(d) "publishes" means reproduction in the printed or
electronic form and making it available for public;

(e) "under circumstances violating privacy" means
circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable
expectation that--

(i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without
being concerned that an image of his private
area was being captured; or

(ii) any part of his or her private area would not
be visible to the public, regardless of
whether that person is in a public or private
place."

(Emphasis supplied)

Whoever intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits

the image of private area of a person without his or her consent is

said to be committing the offence under Section 66E. Several

descriptions are found with regard to capturing of images or making

video. Hence, the petitioner will have to be tried for the aforesaid

offence.
23

11. The other offence is the one punishable under Section

3(2)(v) of the Act. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act reads as follows:-

"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.--(1)
Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, -
... ... ...
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe, -
... ... ...

(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years
or more against a person or property knowing that such person
is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such
property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for life and with fine;"

Any person who commits an offence against the person or property

knowing that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and

with fine.

12. If the complaint and the summary of charge sheet are

considered on the bedrock of the offences alleged, what would

unmistakably emerge is, a few of the offences are loosely laid

against the petitioner and a few are appropriately. Insofar as the

allegation of voyeurism as obtaining under Section 354C is
24

concerned, the contents of the complaint and the summary of the

charge sheet clearly meet the offence of voyeurism. The petitioner

is alleged to have shot several videos of intimate moments or even

videos of the parts of the body of the complainant. If this be the

allegation and it being sustained while filing the charge sheet, it

would undoubtedly meet the allegation of voyeurism. This Court, in

the case of VEERABHADRA SWAMY S V. STATE OF

KARNATAKA1, has held as follows:

"11. If the complaint and the summary of the charge
sheet are read in tandem, it would prima facie lead to the
ingredients of Section 354C of IPC. Section 354C of IPC reads as
follows:

"354C. Voyeurism.--Any man who watches, or captures the
image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances
where she would usually have the expectation of not being
observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the
behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be
punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description
for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be
punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment
of either description for a term which shall not be less than three
years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine."

Section 354C of IPC deals with Voyeurism.
Voyeurism has certain ingredients. Any man who
watches, captures the images of a woman engaging in a
private act would be committing an offence of voyeurism.
Explanation would read, the private act to be including an
act of watching carried out in a place, where it would
1
Crl.P.2396 of 2024 decided on 10.06.2024
25

reasonably expected to provide privacy, which reads as
follows:

"Explanation 1.- For the purpose of this section. "Private
Act" includes an act of watching carried out in a place
which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected
to provide privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior
or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear."

Therefore, the allegation against the petitioner is that he
has indulged in placing a mobile phone in or inside or above the
electric switch board to record the videos or the pictures of the
complainant. The Police have filed the charge sheet after
investigation.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would seek to contend that the mobile phone seized cannot
even take pictures or record videos. It is a matter of evidence,
as in the considered view of the Court Section 354C of IPC,
which has come into force by way of an amendment in the year
2013, as a purpose for introduction of the said provision. The
High Court of Delhi in the case of Sonu vs State, through SHO
reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 1955, considering the
purport of Section 354C of IPC has held as follows:

".... ... ....

SECTION 354C OF IPC. VOYEURISM : ANALYSIS AND
FINDINGS

10. Voyeurism has been introduced as a sex crime against
women in India by way of The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,
2013. Since the appellant has been convicted and sentenced inter
alia under Section 354C of IPC, it would be appurtenant to refer to
the said provision, which is reproduced as under:

"354C. Voyeurism.-Any man who watches, or captures the
image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances
where she would usually have the expectation of not being
observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the
behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be
punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description
for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be
punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment
26

of either description for a term which shall not be less than three
years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

Explanation 1.-For the purpose of this section, "private act"
includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in
the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide
privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts
are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is
using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a
kind ordinarily done in public.

Explanation 2.-Where the victim consents to the capture of the
images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons
and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination
shall be considered an offence under this section."

(Emphasis supplied)

11. Explanation 1 to Section 354C clarifies the meaning of
'private act'. When the definition of voyeurism is read alongwith
the explanation, it would include within its ambit, an act of
watching carried out by the perpetrator in a place used by a
woman/victim where she is engaged in a 'private act' which, in the
circumstances, would reasonably be expected by her to provide
privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are
exposed or covered only in underwear, or where she is using a
lavatory, or where she is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind
ordinarily done in public, and she has reasonable expectation that
she would not be observed by the perpetrator or any other person
at behest of the perpetrator; or where she consents to the capture
of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third
persons and where such image or act is disseminated.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant had two-fold arguments,
firstly that it is an admitted fact that the appellant stays in the
jhuggi next to the jhuggi of the victim. Since the bathroom was
situated in the common area outside their jhuggies, he could not
have been convicted for voyeurism as he was merely standing
outside his house which was his right. Secondly, it was argued that
in the present case, the bathroom used by the victim being
situated at a common public place cannot be termed as a private
area but a public place and thus the act of bathing at such 'public
place' cannot be held to be a 'private act'. He argues that in case,
this Court holds to the contrary, in that case, several thousands of
persons can be prosecuted merely for their presence at public
places such as water parks, swimming pools, lakes, ponds or even
while taking bath in rivers at religious places.
27

13. This Court, however, does not agree with the aforesaid
contentions of learned counsel for the appellant as the same are
contrary to law and cannot be interpreted in the way he argues.

(i) Private Act v. Public Act

14. As regards the first argument advanced by the learned
counsel for appellant, it is to be noted that the bathroom in
question was situated in an open area, but it was not an open
public place as suggested by learned counsel for appellant. It is
clear from the statements of the witnesses that the bathroom had
small walls and a curtain used to be drawn at the time of taking
bath by the victim. The contention that the act of taking bath
cannot be considered a 'private act' as it was being done in a public
place is not only meritless but also absurd. Taking bath in a
bathroom by any person, whether a male or a female, is essentially
a 'private act' as it is taking place inside the four walls of the
bathroom.

15. In the present case, though, it is true that the bathroom
was constructed outside the jhuggi of the victim at a public place,
but it constituted of a covered four walled structure being used as
a bathroom. The entrance of the bathroom used to be covered with
a curtain at the time of taking bath, therefore, it cannot be held
that the bathroom was a open public place. Similarly, there can be
no doubt that the woman taking bath therein will be considered to
be engaged in a 'private act' of taking bath and having reasonable
expectation of not being seen by anyone.

16. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the act of taking bath by the victim in the present case, instead of
being a 'private act' became a 'public act' is totally meritless.
Merely because a structure which is being used as bathroom by a
woman does not have a door but only a curtain and temporary
walls and it is situated outside her house does not make it a public
place and the contention that the act of taking bath by the victim
became a 'public act' instead of being a 'private act' for the said
reason has to be outrightly rejected. It will also amount to holding
that in case a woman takes bath in the bathroom inside her house,
it remains a 'private act' and if she takes bath in a covered
bathroom which is outside her house, will become a 'public act',
which will be irrational. This Court therefore holds that the
bathroom in question in this case was not a public place and the
act of taking bath therein was a 'private act'."
28

13. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are
considered on the bedrock of what voyeurism is, it would
become matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean, not
only for offence under Section 354C of IPC but even for other
offences so alleged.

(Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, the petitioner will have to be tried for the offence under

Section 354C.

13. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 354D i.e.,

stalking is concerned, the allegation against the petitioner and the

complainant is of sexual acts. Mere sending messages between the

two or exchange of messages which contained profanity would not

amount to stalking. Therefore, the offence of stalking is loosely laid

against the petitioner.

14. The offences under Sections 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC

are however be sustainable, as the complaint and the summary of

the charge sheet clearly make out those offences. Any further

elaboration of the statements recorded and their consideration in

the subject petition would prejudice further proceedings before the
29

concerned Court against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court

exercise restraint in going deep into those statements.

15. The other offence is under the Act. What is alleged is

Section 3(2)(v). Whoever commits offence against a person or

property knowing that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste

or Scheduled Tribe is to be incurring the wrath of Section 3(2)(v) of

the Act. As referred to in the section, it is clearly indicative of the

fact that the petitioner has committed certain offences against the

complainant. It is nobody's case that the petitioner did not know

that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the

said offence also is to be sustained.

16. A perusal at the statement, summary of the charge sheet

and the submissions so made, both by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the respondents, are a maze of facts, which would

amaze this Court to exercise its jurisdiction and obliterate entire

proceedings in Special C.C.No.1029 of 2024. It becomes apposite

to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN
30

SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH2, wherein it is held as

follows:

".... .... ....

9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in
the present case the High Court in exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal
proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted
that when the High Court in exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by
the time the investigating officer after recording the
statement of the witnesses, statement of the
complainant and collecting the evidence from the
incident place and after taking statement of the
independent witnesses and even statement of the
accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the
learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147,
148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned
Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned
judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P.,
2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does
not appear that the High Court took into consideration the
material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even
the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482
CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations
in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered
and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is
required to be considered. However, thereafter when
the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and
the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the
investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different
footing and the Court is required to consider the
material/evidence collected during the investigation.
Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in
a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into
the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of
the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate

2
(2021) 9 SCC 35
31

jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court
in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai
Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC
(Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents
of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court
cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the
powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held
that that question is required to be examined keeping in view,
the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring
no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate
evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from
contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further
observed it is more so, when the material relied on is
disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation,
it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such
stage to probe and then of the court to examine
questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such
material as to how far and to what extent reliance can
be placed on such material.

9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this
Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this
Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to
quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is
further observed that inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such
exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the
section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of
evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482
CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind
Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet,
(2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and
in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
32

9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of
the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC.

10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider
the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations
which are required to be gone into and considered at the time
of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which
have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High
Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the
document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta
Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2
Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession
was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required
to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-
10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs
and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni
Devi and no reference to handing over the possession.
However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e.
27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out
of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is
a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs
25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish
during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said
document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the
joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required
to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25
lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference
to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered
document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations
which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The
High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material
collected during the investigation.

11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court
that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC
is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has
noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is
seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is
required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the
33

High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has
failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the
accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC
with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even
according to the accused the possession was handed over to
them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as
mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed
and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2
lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were
handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can
be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage
to opine that no case is made out for the offence under
Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be
considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the
first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent
suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for
permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit
for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all
the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time
of trial only.

12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in
quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the
merits of the allegations as if the High Court was
exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting
the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC.

13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that
original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is
made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on
record the power of attorney along with the counter filed
before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated
in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney
and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the
investigation and has recorded the statement of the
complainant, accused and the independent witnesses,
thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of
attorney or not is to be considered during trial.
34

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam
Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by
the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise
of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly
quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and
proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own
merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this
Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be
confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and
the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and
on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid
and without being influenced by any of the observations made
by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court directs that the High Court exercising jurisdiction

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., should not entertain, interdict or

quash the proceedings if the issue would revolve round seriously

disputed questions of fact.

17. The case at hand, as observed hereinabove, except the

offence of stalking, revolves round seriously disputed questions of

fact, which would require further proceedings before the concerned

Court. Therefore, I decline to exercise my jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to obliterate the proceedings qua all
35

offences except the offence under Section 354D - stalking, as

permitting further trial qua the said offence would undoubtedly

become an abuse of the process of law.

18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) Proceedings in Special C.C.No.1029 of 2024 stand quashed only in respect of offence alleged under Section 354D of the IPC.

(iii) Criminal Petition is dismissed qua all other offences.

(iv) 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 the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending against him before the concerned Court or any other fora. 36 Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2024 also stands disposed.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court