Karnataka HC Lets Stalking, Sexual-Harassment Case Proceed Over Alleged Repeated Sexual Requests After Woman Refused

The complainant alleged that she and the petitioner became acquainted in July 2019 through a marriage alliance and later dated.

She alleged that, after she refused his requests for a sexual relationship, he continued to contact and follow her.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR, charge sheet and proceedings under Sections 354A and 354D of the IPC, arguing that the WhatsApp messages did not disclose the offences and that the complaint was malicious.

The police had filed a charge sheet relying on the complainant’s statements, including her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and statements of other witnesses.

The State opposed quashing, contending that the allegations and messages raised matters for trial.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; proceedings may be quashed where the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, but disputed factual matters ordinarily should not be resolved through a mini-trial at the quashing stage.

The Court referred to the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal concerning categories of cases warranting quashing, and to authorities including Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P. and Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar on the scope of quashing jurisdiction and consideration of material relied upon by the defence.

The alleged offences were under Sections 354A and 354D IPC.

The Court found that the parties’ prior relationship and consensual sexual intercourse did not, by themselves, resolve the allegation that the petitioner subsequently continued to seek sexual favours after refusal.

The complainant’s Section 164 statement and the allegations concerning the meetings on 21 September and 4 October 2019, together with the 4 October conversation, raised issues requiring factual assessment at trial.

The petitioner’s arguments based on the chats, alleged calls and alleged settlement demand involved disputed matters; the Court held they could not establish at the quashing stage that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious.

The criminal petition was dismissed, leaving the proceedings under Sections 354A and 354D IPC to continue before the trial court.