Karnataka High Court
Danish Khan vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 19 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1656
CRL.P No. 200070 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200070 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
DANISH KHAN
S/O SALEEM KHAN
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: ENGINEER
R/O BADA AKHADA, SOUDA VILLAGE,
JALGAON, MAHARASTRA-425001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY KULKARNI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by THROUGH BIDAR WOMAN P.S
SHIVALEELA DIST: BIDAR,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585107
2. KUM.NISHATH FATIMA,
D/O ABDUL SHUKUR
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O MAGDUMJI COLONY
CHIDRI, BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. HANMANTHRAYA SINDOL ADV., FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1656
CRL.P No. 200070 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C (OLD)
U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PETITION BY QUASHING THE FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED
18-06-2022 IN CRIME NO.41/2022 AND QUASH THE CHARGE
SHEET IN C.C.NO.2646/2023 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDNET
POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S 354 A (2), 417 AND 504 OF IPC AND ALSO
QUASH ALL THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
ORDER DATED 16-03-2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC II, BIDAR IN C.C.NO.2646/2023 I.E. ORDER
OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS TO
THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S
354 A (2), 417 AND 504 OF IPC, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II, BIDAR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.2646/2023, arising out of Crime No.41/2022, registered by Women Police Station, Bidar, for the offences punishable under Sections -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1656 CRL.P No. 200070 of 2024 HC-KAR 354(A)(2), 417 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), pending on the file of I-Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Bidar.
2. The abridged facts of the case are, respondent No.2/complaiant lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police on 18.06.2022 alleging that the petitioner/accused belongs to Jalagaon District, Maharashtra State, they both came in contact with each other by chatting in mobile. Subsequently, both were in love and became intimate. Things stood thus, the petitioner and respondent No.2 used to chat through mobile on daily basis and he promised her that he would marry her. Upon such promise, he used to call her through video calls and he made her to remove her dress and also taken her photographs. Thereafter, when she requested to delete the said photos, he demanded Rs.2,000/- and once again he promised that he would marry her. Subsequently, when she insisted to marry him, he abused her in filthy language. As such, she lodged the complaint on -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1656 CRL.P No. 200070 of 2024 HC-KAR 18.06.2022, which is registered in Crime No.41/2022 for the aforementioned offences. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police investigated the case and laid charge-sheet against the petitioner/accused for the aforementioned offences. Accordingly, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/accused preferred the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 remained absent.
4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contented that, during the course of investigation, respondent No.1-Police have not seized mobile phones of the petitioner and respondent No.2, which allegedly contain obscene photos and videos so also their call details register. The panchanama drawn by respondent No.1-Police also depicts that they have not -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1656 CRL.P No. 200070 of 2024 HC-KAR seized the mobile phones. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the prayer and contended that, there was a promise of marriage by the petitioner and he sexually exploited respondent No.2, therefore, he has committed the offences for which he had been charge sheeted.
Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and documents available on record.
7. As could be gathered from the complaint and other records, the same depict that, respondent No.2 and the petitioner came in contact through mobile phone and whatsapp chat. Thereafter, they both became intimate and fell in love. On the promise of accused marrying her, they both were engaged in video calls. The allegation against the petitioner is, at the time of video calls, he made her to -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1656 CRL.P No. 200070 of 2024 HC-KAR remove her cloths and had taken photos and videos of the same.
8. Section 354-A of IPC reads as under:
354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.--
(1) A man committing any of the following acts--
(i) physical contact and advances involving
unwelcome and explicit sexual
overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours;
or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause(i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja vs. State of Uttar -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1656 CRL.P No. 200070 of 2024 HC-KAR Pradesh and Another reported in (2025) SCC 604 held in paragraph Nos.20, 21, 22, 24 and 32 as under:
"20. A bear perusal of Section 354, IPC reveals that for it to apply, the offence must be committed against a woman; criminal force must be applied against her; and such application of force must be with the intent to outrage her modesty. [See: Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra]
21. "Criminal force" is defined in Section 350 IPC, however, what exactly does modesty means, which is an essential aspect for this Section to apply, has not been defined so as to constitute an offence u/s 354 IPC. Any discussion on this Section is incomplete without reference to Rupan Deol Bajaj wherein the Learned Judges observed:
"14. Since the word 'modesty' has not been defined in the Penal Code, 1860 we may profitably look into its dictionary meaning. According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edn.) modesty is the quality of being modest and in relation to woman means "womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct". The word 'modest' in relation to woman is defined in the above dictionary as "decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; shamefast".
Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language defines modesty as "freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct". In the Oxford English Dictionary (1933 Edn.) the meaning of the word 'modesty' is given as "womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reserve or sense of shame proceeding from -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1656 CRL.P No. 200070 of 2024 HC-KAR instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions".
15. ... From the above dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh case [AIR 1967 SC 63 : 1967 Cri LJ 1 : 1966 Supp SCR 286] it appears to us that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman ..."
22. While we hold the above observations as also the discussion made in Major Singh (supra) in the highest esteem and regard, it must not escape us that the observations were made in the societal context and milieu of that time and its import today should be interpreted in our present context. Reference in this regard may be made to observations by Bhat, J in Attorney General v. Satish "66. ... These require an element of application of physical force, to women. The expression "modesty" was another limitation as older decisions show that such a state was associated with decorousness [Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] of women. This added a dimension of patriarchy and class... One cannot be unmindful of the circumstances in which these provisions were enacted by a colonial power, at a time, when women's agency itself was unacknowledged, or had limited recognition. Further, women in India were traditionally--during the time of enactment of IPC, in the midNineteenth Century--subordinated to the care of their fathers, or their husbands, or other male relatives. They had no share in immovable property; notions of gender equality were unheard of, or not permitted. Women had no -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1656 CRL.P No. 200070 of 2024 HC-KAR right to vote. Quite naturally, the dignity of women-- or indeed their autonomy, was not provided for.
67. The advent of the Constitution of India revolutionised--at least in law, all that. Regardless of gender, race, caste, religion or region, or all of the acknowledged sectarian and discrimination enabling barriers, everyone enjoyed equality of law, and equal protection of law (Article 14). Further, the provision in Article 15(1) proscribed discrimination by the State (in all its forms) on various grounds, including gender. Article 15(3) enabled the State to enact special provisions for women and children."
(emphasis in original)
24. It is well settled that for mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the court. As evidenced by the annexures referred to above, i.e. the FIR, the preliminary investigation report as also the concluding portion of the chargesheet, no direct allegation nor any evidence in support thereof can be found attributing intent to the appellant. It cannot be said, then, that a case u/s 354 IPC is made out against the appellant.
32. This Court's judgment in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. culled out the following principles:-
12. .....(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1656 CRL.P No. 200070 of 2024 HC-KAR nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not."
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1656 CRL.P No. 200070 of 2024 HC-KAR
10. In the instant case, admittedly no criminal force has been used by the petitioner against respondent No.2.
Nevertheless, respondent No.1-Police have failed to seize the mobile phone of petitioner and respondent No.2 and their call detail register, without which, the complaint averments cannot be proved in a trial.
11. It is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that there was a promise of marriage by the petitioner and thereby he sexually exploited respondent No.2. As per settled position of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Pratap Singh Rana vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another reported in (2024) 8 SCC 313, respondent No.2 being the major, voluntarily involved in the video calls with the petitioner by undressing herself. Therefore, the offences alleged against the petitioner do not attract.
12. In such circumstances, in my considered view, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/accused
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1656 CRL.P No. 200070 of 2024 HC-KAR amounts to abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.2646/2023, arising out of Crime No.41/2022, registered by Women Police Station, Bidar, for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A)(2), 417 and 504 of IPC, pending on the file of I-Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Bidar, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34 CT-BH