Recently, in a significant ruling addressing the limits of inherent judicial powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the Karnataka High Court examined whether criminal proceedings arising from intimate allegations between two UPSC aspirants, including charges of voyeurism, criminal intimidation, and caste-based offences, could be quashed at the pre-trial stage. The Court was called upon to assess whether the petitioner’s claimed marital relationship, coupled with the consensual nature of the interactions, rendered the criminal prosecution an abuse of process, or whether the allegations merited adjudication through full trial. Read on to explore how the Court weighed complex factual claims against the statutory thresholds of each offence.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a complaint filed by the second respondent, Pinki Sharma, against the petitioner. The parties first met in January 2022 while preparing for the UPSC examination in Delhi and subsequently entered into a relationship. The petitioner claims they were married, whereas the complainant disputes this.
Following the deterioration of their relationship, the complainant alleged that the petitioner, under the pretext of marriage, recorded private content, issued threats of dissemination, and used abusive language. Considering her Scheduled Tribe status, the FIR was registered under Sections 354-C, 354-D, 504, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The petitioner subsequently approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted that the initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law. It was contended that the relationship between the parties was consensual and culminated in a marriage that was formally registered on 10 November 2023. The petitioner further argued that the allegations lacked substance and were devoid of the essential ingredients necessary to attract the invoked offences.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The second respondent opposed the petition, maintaining that the offences alleged were made out on the face of the record. It was argued that the charge sheet ought to have included offences under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC, which were wrongly omitted during the investigation, and that the trial court should be permitted to consider adding these charges based on the evidence.
The Additional State Public Prosecutor supported this submission, contending that the charge sheet disclosed detailed allegations involving complex factual issues which could only be adjudicated during trial. Accordingly, both the complainant and the State sought dismissal of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Observations of the Court:
The Court found that the charge under Section 354C IPC, relating to voyeurism, was prima facie made out. Referring to the contents of the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet, the Court observed that they “clearly meet the offence of voyeurism.” It was noted that the petitioner had allegedly recorded intimate videos of the complainant, thereby fulfilling the ingredients of voyeurism, which involves the capture of images of a woman engaged in a private act in a context where privacy is reasonably expected. In support of this view, the Court relied on its previous ruling in Veerabhadra Swamy S v. State of Karnataka, where similar conduct was held to fall within the scope of Section 354C IPC.
In contrast, the Court found that the allegation of stalking under Section 354D IPC was inadequately supported. It held that “mere sending messages between the two or exchange of messages which contained profanity would not amount to stalking.” The charge, according to the Court, was “loosely laid” and failed to meet the threshold required under law.
The Court further held that the allegations invoked under Sections 504, 506, and 509 IPC, pertaining to intentional insult, criminal intimidation, and insulting the modesty of a woman, were sufficiently made out, observing that “the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet clearly make out those offences.” Likewise, the Court found that the offence under Section 66E of the IT Act, which relates to violation of privacy through capturing and disseminating private images, was also made out on the face of the record.
Regarding the application of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the Court noted that “it is nobody’s case that the petitioner did not know that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Tribe,” and held that the allegations, if accepted as true, satisfied the statutory requirement of the offence being committed on account of her caste status.
Finally, emphasizing the need for a full trial, the Court declined to scrutinize the witness statements in detail so as to avoid prejudicing the proceedings. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court observed that the case presented a complex set of facts, not suited for adjudication under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and therefore did not warrant quashing of the proceedings at the pre-trial stage.
The decision of the Court:
In view of the foregoing discussion, the Court partly allowed the criminal petition. The proceedings insofar as they related to the offence under Section 354D IPC (stalking) were quashed. However, the prayer for quashing the proceedings in respect of the remaining offences, namely, Sections 354C, 504, 506, and 509 of the IPC, Section 66E of the IT Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, was rejected.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and shall not affect the merits of the matter pending before the trial court or any other competent forum.
Case Title: Abhishek Mishra Vs. State Of Karnataka and Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.8596 of 2024
Coram: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Monica Patil
Advocate for Respondent: Addl.SPP. B.N.Jagadeesha and Adv. M.B.Ravi Kumar
Picture Source :
