SRI ANIL ROHAN MENEZES vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6103 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI. ANIL ROHAN MENEZES
C/O JOHN BAPTIST MENEZES
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT NO.53, BASAGAL,
CHIKKAMAGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 577 132.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHILASH H.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2.
JAHNAVI H.G
D/O GANGADHARA H
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT PSR KEMPS, 3RD MAIN,
HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. SWATI GOPALKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2026,
PASSED BY THE HONBLE 7TH A.C.J.M BENGALURU, TAKING
COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 75(2) OF BNS AND ISSUING SUMMONS TO
THE PETITIONER HEREIN BY REGISTERING CASE IN
C.C.NO.14887/2026 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSIION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before the Court calling in question the
proceedings in C.C.No.14887/2026 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
th
Sanhita, 2023 ('the BNS' for short), pending on the file of 7
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. Heard Sri. Abhilash H.S., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner - accused; Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1
- State and Smt. Swati Gopalkrishna, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 - complainant
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
3. The facts adumbrated are as follows:
3.1. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. The genesis of
lis
the lies in a complaint registered on 24-01-2026, which
comes to be transformed into Crime No.35 of 2026 for the
offence punishable under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’ for short). The allegation, shorn of
embellishment, is that the petitioner exposed his private part at
a public place near Hebbal at a time when the complainant was
walking by. This solitary incident becomes the fulcrum around
which the entire crime revolves.
3.2. The Police conduct investigation and, on its
culmination, lay a charge sheet against the petitioner. It is the
filing of the charge sheet and the consequential continuation of
criminal proceedings that have driven the petitioner to the
doors of this Court in the subject petition.
SUBMISSIONS:
PETITONER:
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
seek to place an altogether different complexion upon the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
incident. He would submit that, after alighting from a bus, the
petitioner was in urgent need of a restroom and frantically
searched for one in the vicinity. Finding none, and being
unable to resist nature’s call any longer, the petitioner sought
to relieve himself by the side of the street. At that precise
moment, the complainant happened to walk past the place. The
petitioner, unaware of her presence, suddenly turned around
and, in that fleeting moment, the complainant happened to see
his private part. This accidental circumstance, according to the
learned counsel, has been given the colour of a criminal act and
has ultimately snowballed into the impugned prosecution.
4.1. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that
an accidental exposure, bereft of any sexual overture, intent or
conduct directed towards the complainant, cannot be
metamorphosed into an offence merely because the
complainant happened to witness it. He would submit that the
ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section
75(2) of the BNS—corresponding to Section 354A of the
erstwhile the IPC—are not merely absent, but are not
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
discernible even in their remotest semblance from the
complaint or the material collected during investigation.
COMPLAINANT:
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2 - complainant would however contend that the petitioner
was not only answering the call of nature, but was making
some gestures, as well. In that light, the learned counsel
submits that this is a matter where it must be permitted to be
tried and for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown
trial, as to what was he doing at that point in time.
STATE:
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader also
would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the
complainant in seeking 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.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
CONSIDERATION:
8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record.
They would not require any iteration. The entire issue gets
triggered from the registration of the complaint. The gist of the
complaint as found in column No.10 reads as follows:
"10.
ಪ ಥಮ ವತ ಾನ ವರ ಯ ವರಗಳ
,
ದೂರು ಾರರು ಾೆೆ ಾಜ ಾ ೕ ದ ದೂ!ನ "ಾ ಾಂಶ%ೇನಂದ ೇ ಈ ನ
:-24-01-2026 03-40
'ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಮ)ಾ*ಹ, ಸು ಾರು ಗಂ.ೆ ಸಮಯದ/0
'ಾನು ೆ1ಾ2ಳ !ಂ3 ರ"ೆ4ಯ ಬ6 ಬ7 ಇ6ದು ಮ'ೆ ೆ ೋಗಲು ೈ;ೆ< .ಾ =
ಕ>ೆ ೆ ನ>ೆದು?ೊಂಡು ೋಗುA4ಾBಗ ನನ, ಎದು! ೆ ಬಂದ ಒಬ2 ಅಪ!Fತ ವ*G4 ನನ,
,
ಹA4ರ ಬಂದು ಆತನ IೆJ%ೇK IಾK ನು, Lೆ ೆದು ಸ'ೆ, ಾ ದುB ಆಗ 'ಾನು ಸ<ಲM
,
ಮುಂ ೆ ಬಂದು ನಂತರ ಮLೆ4 ೋ ಆತನನು, N ದು?ೊಂ ದುB ಆತ ನ ,ಂದ
,
ತOMP?ೊಂಡು ೋಗುA4ಾBಗ 'ಾನು ಕೂ ?ೊಂ ದುB ಅ/0ದB ಜನರು ಆತನನು,
.
N ?ೊಂ ರುLಾ4 ೆ 'ಾನು Q/ೕ7 ಾೆೆ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಆತನ ೆಸರು ಅ R
,
ೋಹS Tನಂಜ7 ಎಂದು A6ದುಬಂ ರುತ4ೆ ಆದB!ಂದ ಆತನ ರುದU ಸೂಕ4
."
?ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ?ೈ ೊಳV1ೇ?ೆಂದು ?ೊಟX ದೂರು ಇLಾ*
(Emphasis added)
The complaint itself narrates that the complainant,
after alighting from a bus, was proceeding towards the
nearby railway track. At that point in time, the
petitioner, without noticing the presence of the
complainant, was attending to nature’s call and, in the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
process, his private part came to be exposed. It is this
circumstance—an exposure alleged to have occurred
while the petitioner was answering nature’s call and
without his attention being directed towards the
complainant—that becomes the fulcrum of the allegation
and leads to registration of the crime for the offence
punishable under Section 75(2) of the BNS.
9. The Police thereafter conduct investigation and lay a
charge sheet against the petitioner. Thus, what begins with the
aforesaid fleeting incident travels through the rigours of
investigation and culminates in a final report seeking
prosecution of the petitioner under Section 75(2) of the BNS.
10. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in
column No.17 reads as follows:
"17) ( : Brief Facts of
?ೇPನ ಸಂYಪ4 ವರ ಅವಶ ದB/0 ಪ Lೇಕ ಾZೆ ಲಗA4P
the case/Charge (Add separate Sheet, if necessary)
-1 || .
ಈ ೋ[ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪ]Xಯ/0 ಕಂಡ "ಾY ರವ ಾದ ಕು ^ಾ < ೆ_ ` ರವರು
:24-01-2026 3.40
'ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಸಂ^ೆ ಸು ಾರು ಗಂ.ೆ ೆ ?ೊ ೇಹ6V
Q/ೕ7 ಾಾ ಸರಹ Bನ/0ರುವ ೆ1ಾ2ಳ ಬ7 "ಾXa ನ/0 ಬ7 ಂದ ಇ6ದು
-1
ಮ'ೆ ೆ ೋಗಲು ೈ;ೆ< .ಾ = ಕ>ೆ ೆ ನ>ೆದು?ೊಂಡು ೋಗುA4ರು%ಾಗ ಎ
-1
ಆ ೋOತ'ಾದ ಅ R ೋಹS Tೕ'ೆ`ೕ7 ರವರು "ಾY ರವರ ಬ6 ಬಂದು
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
, ,
ತನ, IೆJ%ೇK IಾK Lೆ ೆದು Lೋ!P ?ೈbಂದ ಸMc P ಮುಂ ೆ ೋ ದುB
-1 -1
ನಂತರ "ಾY ರವರು ಎ ಆ ೋOತ ?ೈ N ದು?ೊಂಡು ^ೋ ಾ
-1 -1
ಕೂ ?ೊಂ ದುB ಎ ಆ ೋOಯು ತOMP?ೊಳVಲು "ಾY ರವರ ?ೈಗ6 ೆ
. -1 -4 .
` ]ರುLಾ4 ೆ ನಂತರ "ಾY ರವರ ಸ ಾಯ?ೆe "ಾY f ೕ ಸುgೕh ಮತು4
. -5 , . -1 112
"ಾY ಪi^ಾ! ;ೋ?ೇj ` ರವರು ಬಂ ರುLಾ4 ೆ ನಂತರ "ಾY ರವರು
. -6 . -7
ೆ ಕ ೆ ಾ ದುB ಸkಳ?ೆe "ಾY f ೕ ರಂಗಪM ಪi^ಾ! ಮತು4 "ಾY
-1 ,
ಪರುಶು ಾl ರವರು ಎಂದು ಎ ಆ ೋOಯನು, ?ೊ ೇಹ6V Q/ೕ7 ಾೆೆ
:
ಾಜರುಪ PರುLಾ4ರ
-1 , -1
ಆದB!ಂದ "ಾY ರವ! ೆ ಎ ಆ ೋOತನು ತನ, IೆJ%ೇK %ಾK ನು,
-1
Lೋ!P ?ೈ ಸ'ೆ, ಾ ಮತು4 "ಾY ರವರ ?ೈ ೆ ಸMc Pರುವmದು
-1. - 75(2) BNS-2023.
ಧೃಢಪ]XದB!ಂದ ಎ ರವರ ರುದU ಕಲಂ !ೕLಾ* ಆ ೋಪ
."
ೊ!ಸ;ಾ ಾನ 'ಾqಾಲಯ?ೆe %ೇ P?ೊಂ ರುತ4ೆ
11. The issue that now falls for consideration is,
whether the allegations, even if accepted in their
entirety, would satisfy the ingredients of the offence
punishable under Section 75(2) of the BNS,
corresponding to Section 354A of the erstwhile the IPC.
12. For conduct of the kind alleged to enter the precincts
of the offence, the act cannot be viewed in isolation from the
circumstances attending it. There must be conduct carrying
the necessary sexual overtone and, above all, the requisite
mens rea
. An accidental or unintended exposure, bereft of
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
sexual intent and not directed towards the woman, cannot,
merely because it is witnessed by a woman, be metamorphosed
into an offence of sexual harassment.
13. The facts obtaining in the case at hand are required
to be noticed on this bedrock. The petitioner was admittedly
answering nature’s call. The explanation offered is that he had
searched for a public toilet and, finding none in the vicinity, was
compelled by the exigency of nature to relieve himself at the
place in question. It is at that point that the complainant walks
towards the place where the petitioner was answering nature’s
call. Significantly, the statement of the complainant does
not narrate that the petitioner was waiting for her,
beckoned her, followed her, made any sexually coloured
remark or deliberately exposed himself upon noticing
her. The reaction attributed to the petitioner, on
noticing the complainant, is one of sudden shock. That
reaction, far from supplying the element of sexual intent,
prima facie travels in the opposite direction.
14. The distinction cannot be lost sight of.
Exposure of the body and intentional exposure of the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
body to a woman for a sexual purpose are not
synonymous. Criminal law punishes the latter when the
statutory ingredients are fulfilled; it cannot mechanically
criminalise the former merely because circumstances
unfortunately bring it within the sight of another. The
surrounding circumstances must lend the act as the colour of
the offence alleged. Otherwise, the indispensable element of
mens rea
would disappear and mere happenstance would be
elevated to criminality.
15. In the considered view of this Court, therefore, a
person answering nature’s call and a woman inadvertently
coming within his line of sight at that precise moment cannot,
without anything more, satisfy the ingredients of the offence
alleged under Section 75(2) of the BNS. The complaint and the
material collected during investigation, as projected, do not
disclose any deliberate act of exposure directed towards the
complainant or any conduct demonstrative of sexual intent.
The mere fact that the complainant happened to see the
private part of the petitioner cannot supply an ingredient which
the statute itself requires.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
16. The criminal law cannot be permitted to travel
on conjecture from exposure to intention, and from
intention to sexual intent, when the foundational facts
necessary to sustain that journey are themselves absent.
Every unpleasant, embarrassing or socially unacceptable
circumstance cannot, on that score alone, be brought
within the contours of a penal provision . Therefore,
permitting the petitioner to undergo the rigmarole of a
criminal trial on the aforesaid allegations would amount
to permitting the process of law itself to become the
punishment. Where the very substratum of the
prosecution, taken at its highest, does not disclose the
ingredients of the offence alleged, continuation of the
proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and
would result in patent miscarriage of justice. The
proceedings, therefore, cannot be permitted to continue.
17. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the
Apex Court rendered in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v.
1
BHAJAN LAL , wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
1
1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or 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 a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a
noncognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the principles so unequivocally enunciated
by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment, this Court can
scarcely remain a mute spectator to the continuance of a
prosecution which, on the face of the record, cannot be
permitted to survive. This is, therefore, a fit case where the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the
BNSS must be exercised, lest the criminal process itself
become an instrument of injustice. Consequently, the crime
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47384
CRL.P No. 6103 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010280612026
registered against the petitioner deserves to be, and is
accordingly, obliterated from its very inception.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is allowed .
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.14887/2026 pending on
th
the file of 7 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13