MR NEELABH TEWARI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5007 OF 2020


BETWEEN:

MR. NEELABH TEWARI
S/O MR. GOPAL DUTT TEWARI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.D 705
KUMARADHARA BLOCK, NGV
BENGALURU-560047
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. KARAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU
(THROUGH KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION)
BENGALURU

2. MS. PALLAVI SHARMA
D/O MR. Y.K. SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.13
ST ST
1 CROSS, 1 MAIN
TH
KORAMANGALA 7 BLOCK
BENGALURU-560017
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2853/2020, INCLUDING CHARGE SHEET AND FIR IN











Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


CR.NO.320/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 354(A) AND 354(D) OF IPC, FILED IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH, PENDING BEFORE THE XLI ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (KORAMANGALA
POLICE STATION) (AT ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 29.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV ORDER

This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner in
C.C.No.2853/2020 including charge sheet and FIR in
Cr.No.320/2019 for the offences under Sections 354A and
354D of IPC pending on the file of XLI A.C.M.M., Bengaluru and
all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and
unrepresented.
3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant in the
complaint that she was residing at Koramangala and this
petitioner came to know through her parents in connection with

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


marriage alliance in July, 2019 and both were talking each
other. It is the allegation against the petitioner that under the
guise of dating, on 14.08.2019, this petitioner had requested
the complainant to have the sexual relationship and the same
was refused by complainant. Thereafter, the complainant had
stopped communication with the petitioner. It is the allegation
against the petitioner that inspite of complainant had refused
the petitioner, the petitioner continued to follow the
complainant, used to make phone calls and chat through
whatsapp and requested her for sexual relationship and to
spend time with him. Hence, complaint is lodged in this regard.
The police having registered the case, investigated the matter
and filed the charge sheet relying upon the statement of
complainant who has been cited as CW1 and so also CW2 who
came to know about the same through CW1 and he had also
witnessed that the complainant and petitioner were moving
each other. The prosecution also relies upon the statement of
other witnesses i.e., CW3 to CW5. In view of registration of
case and filing of charge sheet, the present petition is filed by
the petitioner seeking for quashing of the proceedings initiated
against him.

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


4. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the petitioner that having perused the charge sheet and entire
proceedings ex facie, it is an abuse of process and nothing is
made out to continue the criminal proceedings. The counsel
vehemently contend that WhatsApp chats produced by
complainant which is part of the charge sheet do not support
the case of the complainant in any way and the said WhatsApp
chats exonerate the petitioner as the same nothing discloses
with regard to invoking the offences invoked against the
petitioner. The counsel also vehemently contend that there is
no evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the
offences alleged in the charge sheet and there is no prima facie
case. If no prima facie case, there is no need to continue the
criminal proceedings. The learned Magistrate has mechanically
and without any application of mind have taken cognizance of
the offence and fails to apply its judicious mind. The order does
not reflect that whether the learned Magistrate is satisfied
about the existence of prima facie case or not.
5. The counsel in support of his arguments brought to
notice of this court the conversation made through WhatsApp
when the specific allegations are made that on particular date,
made a request for sexual relationship and those relevant dates

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


does not disclose anything about the said fact and there is no
even a single instance of the petitioner demanding any sexual
favours from the complainant. It is contended that petitioner
has, at all times, maintained that he is not interested in a
casual or physical relationship with the complainant as is clear
from the records produced by the complainant herself and form
part of the charge sheet. By the complainant's own admissions
and statements, it is evidently clear that her actions are
motivated with a malafide intention to wreak vengeance and
cause harm to the petitioner. The initiation of criminal
prosecution ex facie malicious in nature and cannot form the
basis of criminal proceedings and continuation of criminal
prosecution is an abuse of process. If it is permitted to
continue, it leads to miscarriage of justice since the complaint
is a motivated one.
6. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also
brought to notice of this court the statement recorded by the
learned Magistrate of the victim before the court on 14.10.2019
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Her statement is very clear that
when both of them met each other, the petitioner kept on
asking for sexual relationship. One night, they had a sexual
intercourse. But he kept on asking for it and he kept on

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


messaging her. The specific statement is made that again on
21.09.2019, they met again and petitioner asked for sexual
relationship and she left from there. After that, again and again
he kept on asking the same. On 04.10.2019, petitioner
messaged the complainant to meet her and discuss at the place
of her choice. When she went to his office for the discussion as
it was safer place, she waited in the office but petitioner did not
th
come. On 5 , complainant went to the police station and told
the police about daily keeps on messaging her by the
petitioner. The very statement itself is very clear that both had
a sexual intercourse with consent. Hence, the question of
invoking of Sections 354A and 354D of IPC does not arise.
7. The counsel also brought to notice of this court the
conversation dated 21.09.2019. On perusal of the same, it
discloses that there is no demand of sexual relationship by the
petitioner. The counsel brought notice of this court that on that
date, she herself made the message that ‘catch tonight’ and
she also messaged that ‘drinking or watching something’ and
she says that ‘she has half a bottle of vodka’. These are the
conversations on particular date. But no such demand of any
sexual relationship. But she replies that ‘she had drinks and
cuddle in her mind but yeah casual sex is still not okay’. The

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


counsel also brought to notice of this court the conversation
dated 04.10.2019 since an accusation is made against the
petitioner that there was demand of sexual relationship on that
day also. But no such message on that date even long
conversation was made between them.
8. The counsel also brought to notice of this court the
statement of CW2 who is only a hearsay witness and there is
no any material before the Court. The counsel also brought to
notice of this court Annexure-C for having taken cognizance by
the trial court and order at Annexure-C is that perused the
charge sheet and the annexed document. There appear to be a
prima facie case against the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 354A and 354D of IPC. The counsel also brought
to notice of this court Annexure-D i.e., Whatsapp Chats, so also
Annexure-E and F. The counsel also brought to notice of this
court Annexure-G that is the conversation between both of
them dated 14.08.2019 and so also Annexure-H wherein there
is number of missed calls by the complainant herself and list in
this regard is given. Annexure-J discloses the conversation of
both of them we can settle up things with talk, please reply to
text and calls. The counsel also brought to notice of this court
Annexure-K - email of complainant dated 14.09.2020. The

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


counsel brought to notice of this court Annexure-L wherein she
has stated that the petitioner has apparently switched off his
phone. The counsel relying upon all these documents would
contend that the same clearly discloses that there was no such
ingredients of the offence of Sections 354A and 354D of IPC.
9. The counsel in support of his arguments also would
contend that petitioner had never met complainant but
complainant initiates contact by sending a friend request on
Facebook to petitioner and informs him that their families had
explored an alliance which was rejected by the petitioner
referring Annexure-D. Complainant herself proposes to get
intimate with the petitioner since the allegation is that the
petitioner and the complainant got intimate on 14.08.2019 and
the complainant was not in favour of such relationship. But
conversation is very clear that she herself has demanded sex.
But she claims that she ended contact with the petitioner but
petitioner through WhatsApp, asked for sexual favours. The
counsel also brought to notice of this court the conversation of
19.09.2019 and on 21.09.2019 and complainant broadly
alleges harassment on 04.10.2019 and conversation also taken
place between them and allegation that complainant calls up
the petitioner 61 times on his phone number but petitioner

- 9 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


does not respond. Thus, complaint was filed and FIR was
registered on 08.10.2019 and on 14.10.2019, complainant
records her for 164 statement retreating the same and charge
sheet was filed on 22.11.2019. Even though there was no any
material, but on 20.04.2025, complainant seeks for Rs.1 crore
as settlement and makes allegations against her counsel also.
10. The counsel in support of his arguments relies upon
judgment of this Court passed in Crl.P.No.220/2018
connected with Crl.P.No.8868/2017 dated 25.09.2026
wherein petition was allowed and quashed the proceedings
considering the material on record particularly for the offence
under Section 354A(1) of IPC.
11. The counsel also relies upon judgment of the Apex
Court reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 759 in the case of
ACHIN GUPTA vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER and
brought to notice of this court discussion made in paragraphs
24, 30, 31 and 35, wherein discussion was made with regard to
principles laid down in the judgment State of A.P. vs
Vangaveeti Nagaiah ([2009] 12 SCC 466) . The Court has
to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is
no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly

- 10 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


inconsistent with the accusations made while exercising the
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The counsel also brought to
notice of this Court, the discussion made in paragraph 30
wherein the judgment of
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal
(1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 was referred wherein it is held that
the Court has to look into the category 7 as indicated where the
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide. The
counsel also brought to notice of this court paragraph 31
wherein detailed discussion was made keeping the said
judgment and so also paragraph 35 wherein taken note of
recent pronouncements of the Apex Court in Mahmood Ali vs
State of U.P. (2023 SC Online SC 950) that the legal
principle applicable apropos Section 482 of the Cr.P.C was
examined and criminal proceedings is quashed, essentially on
the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious.
12. The counsel also relies upon the judgment of the
Apex Court reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1165 in the
case of G V ADHIMOOLAM AND OTHERS vs INSPECTOR OF
POLICE AND ANOTHER and brought to notice of this Court
paragraphs 29 and 30, wherein also the Apex Court discussed

- 11 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., if complaint is manifestly
frivolous or vexatious.
13. The counsel also relies upon judgment of the Apex
Court reported in 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 947 in the case of
SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM vs STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
and brought to notice of this court paragraph 28 wherein also
discussed that court while exercising its jurisdiction on Section
482 of Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation.
14. The counsel also relies upon judgment of the Apex
Court reported in (2025) 2 SCC 604 in the case of NARESH
ANEJA @ NARESH KUMAR ANEJA vs STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH AND ANOTHER and brought to notice of this court
paragraphs 18 to 20, 23 to 25 wherein also discussion is made
with regard to exercising the powers under Section 482. The
Court cannot conduct a mini-trial but instead is to be satisfied
that prima facie the offences as alleged are made out and so
also invoking of Section 354 of IPC in paragraph 20. In

- 12 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


paragraph 23 to 25 taken note of statement under Section 164
of Cr.P.C of the complainant and also the charge sheet
material.
15. The counsel relies upon judgment of the Apex Court
reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 in the case of MOHD. AKRAM
SIDDIQUI vs STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER wherein
discussed that whether defence case when may be considered
while hearing the argument at quashment. Where document is
relied upon is public document or where veracity thereof is not
disputed by complainant. The defence evidence under inherent
power of High Court is not absolutely barred. The counsel
brought to notice of this court the discussion made in
paragraph 5 of the Judgment.
16. The counsel also relies upon the judgment reported
in 2025 SCC ONLINE CAL 220 in the case of DEEPAK SINGH
vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER, High Court of
Calcutta and brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 15 to
25 wherein discussion was made with regard to Section 354C
and 354D for an offence of stalking and punishment for sexual
harassment. Both Section 354A and 354B and ingredients of
the offence also discussed.

- 13 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


17. The counsel relies upon the judgment reported in
2024 SCC ONLINE CAL 6948 in the case of SATYABRATA
BARIK vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOHTER and
brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 22 to 30 wherein
discussion was made for invoking of offence under Section
354D of IPC with regard to perpetrator’s gender; unwanted
contact; repetition and absence of interest was discussed.
18. The counsel relies upon the judgment reported in
(2022) 1 HCC (DEL) 314 in the case of DR. KARUNAKAR
PATRA vs STATE and brought to notice of this Court
paragraphs 12 to 16 wherein discussed that the Court has to
take note of invoking of an offence at the drop of a hat to
register one’s displeasure at the conduct of another individual.
19. The counsel referring these judgments would
vehemently contend that the court has to take note of conduct
of the complainant.
20. The counsel also filed the documents on 29.10.2026
as this court has directed to produce the statement of
witnesses.

- 14 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


21. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondent/State would contend that the case of the
complainant that both of them came in contact in connection
with marriage alliance, but they were dating each other. The
material particularly 164 statement discloses that both of them
had sexual intercourse. The allegation against the petitioner
that thereafter also, the petitioner has continued to ask for
sexual favour repeatedly. The counsel relies upon the
WhatsApp chats and contend that court has to take note of the
same particularly the chat dated 04.10.2019. The specific
allegations are made in the complaint as well as in the 164
statement before the learned Magistrate that petitioner sent
the message to meet her and discuss with her at the place of
her choice but he did not meet her. The counsel also
vehemently contend after denial from the complainant also, the
petitioner kept on asking her to meet and take a day leave
from work and spend time/d/ay with him. When she met him
once to resolve and listen to what he is saying, he dragged her
as she denied sexual favour that is dated 10.11.2019. The
whatsapp chats clearly show that many times, petitioner has
asked the complainant to meet him. Based on the complaint,
the Police have investigated the matter and recorded the

- 15 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


statement and cited witnesses particularly CW1 and CW2 and
other witnesses. The counsel would contend that it is a matter
of trial and the documents which have been relied upon by the
petitioner cannot be considered at this stage and court cannot
conduct a mini trial and defence also cannot be considered at
the time of quashing the proceedings. Hence, prayed this court
to dismiss the petition.
22. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on
record, the point that would arise for consideration of the
petition is:

1. Whether it is a fit case to exercise the powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner
under Sections 354A and 354D of IPC?

2. What order
Point No.1:
23. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also considering the material on record
and also the principles laid down in the judgments referred
supra, it is very clear that the case is based on frivolous

- 16 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


litigation and the court can exercise the powers under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. If any public document discloses that the case is
registered on personal vengeance, the same also can be looked
into in view of the judgment of
MOHD. AKRAM SIDDIQUI
case referred supra. The specific allegations made in the
complaint as well as in the charge sheet against the petitioner
that both of them came in contact in connection with marriage
alliance and the same is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that
they were in touch with each other from July 2019. The counsel
also brought to notice of this court the whatsapp messages and
synopsis filed by the petitioner and also 164 statement wherein
it is very clear that both of them had sexual intercourse earlier.
But it is the allegation against the petitioner that he kept on
insisting her for sexual favour though it is stated that once in
life. The allegations dated 21.09.2019 and 04.10.2019 that
both of them met on 21.09.2019, but she has refused and
again 04.10.2019. Having perused the conversation of
04.10.2019, it is very clear that the same is with regard to the
sexual act is concerned, particularly at 10:49, she had replied
that he always had an option to clearly say, you just wanna
fuck around, but manipulating her into this has left her with

- 17 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


trust issues. All this conversation is with regard to a sexual
favour.
24. The specific allegation made in 164 statement as
well as in her statement that when he made a request to meet,
she intentionally suggested the place of working, she went but
he did not come to meet her. All these materials to be
considered during the course of trial, not at the stage of
considering the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The
disputed issues as well as facts could be considered only during
the course of trial. No doubt, the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra, it is clear that only in a case of
frivolous and vexatious complaints are filed, court can quash
the same. But in the case on hand, court has to look into the
materials available on record particularly the conversation
dated 04.10.2019. No doubt, the counsel appearing for the
petitioner brought to notice of this court that the complainant
demanded for crores of rupees to settle the issues. The same is
an issue once again that whether it is a demand made by the
complainant or not and the same is a question of trial. No
doubt, she has given missed call on several times. The court
has to take note that when the meeting date and time was
fixed and when he did not respond, those calls were given and

- 18 -
CRL.P No. 5007 of 2020


the same cannot be termed as a frivolous complaint. But the
fact that both of them are in contact with each other in
connection with marriage alliance. The specific allegations are
made for the offences under Section 354A and also Section
354D of IPC and the same has to be considered by the Trial
Court and not at this stage. Thus, I do not find any grounds to
exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence,
answered the above point as negative.
Point No.2:
25. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE



SN