Borrower’s Further Statement Disowns Sexual-Favour Demand And Makes No Threat Allegation, So Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against Lender

Respondent No. 2 complained that the petitioner, from whom she had sought financial assistance, demanded sexual favours and threatened her during a discussion about repayment. The police initially registered offences under Sections 74, 75(1)(ii), 75(1)(iv), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), but filed a charge-sheet under Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2).

In a further statement recorded during the investigation, respondent No. 2 stated that no demand for sexual favours had been made and did not sustain the allegation of a threat. The complainant and the State did not dispute the statement’s recording or contents.

The petitioner sought quashing of the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Section 75(1)(ii) of the BNS criminalises a demand or request for sexual favours; such a demand or request is an essential ingredient of the offence.

Under Section 351(1), criminal intimidation requires a threat of injury to a person, reputation or property, coupled with an intention to cause alarm or to compel the person to act or refrain from acting; Section 351(2) prescribes punishment for that offence.

Under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of a court or otherwise secure the ends of justice, including where the allegations and investigation material do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

The original complaint alleged that the petitioner sought sexual favours, but the complainant’s undisputed further statement specifically denied that any such demand had been made. Her statement that the petitioner looked at her inappropriately did not, by itself, establish a demand or request for sexual favours; the Court noted that no other investigation material supported that allegation.

As to intimidation, the further statement did not sustain the alleged threat, and the material did not disclose a threat intended to cause alarm or compel the complainant to act or refrain from acting.

In those circumstances, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would warrant exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

It quashed the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings in C.C. No. 176/2025, arising from Crime No. 102/2025, for offences under Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2) of the BNS, insofar as the petitioner was concerned.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the petition.