Karnataka High Court quashes sexual-assault case filed nearly 10 years after alleged incident, citing unexplained delay despite earlier complaints to authorities

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner, then her superior at BESCOM, sexually assaulted her at a hotel in Tumakuru on 30 August 2014, threatened her, and recorded a video of the incident

She stated that she complained to the police and various authorities from 2016 onwards, but filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC, corresponding to Section 223 BNSS, only on 30 July 2024.

The Magistrate referred it for investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS, leading to the proceedings challenged by the petitioner

The petitioner sought quashing, relying principally on the nearly ten-year delay and his retirement from service; respondent No. 2 attributed the delay in part to fear of adverse action while he remained in a position of authority

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, continuation of the FIR and private-complaint proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting quashing

Whether the delay in filing the private complaint, considered alongside the complainant’s earlier approaches to authorities and the petitioner’s retirement, justified quashing the proceedings without deciding the merits of the allegations

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice

The complaint was brought under Section 200 CrPC, corresponding to Section 223 BNSS, and referred for investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS

The Court applied the principle that the continuation of criminal proceedings may be quashed where the cumulative circumstances of the particular case make their continuation an abuse of process; it cited no precedent and did not treat the delay, by itself, as determinative

The Court considered the nearly ten-year interval between the alleged incident and the private complaint, the complainant’s earlier complaints to police and other authorities, and the petitioner’s retirement before the complaint was filed

Although the complainant had not remained wholly silent, the Court held that her explanation—fear of adverse action while the petitioner was in service—did not satisfactorily account for the entire delay, particularly given her earlier complaints and his subsequent retirement

Considering these circumstances cumulatively, the Court concluded that permitting the proceedings to continue would not advance the interests of justice.

It expressly declined to determine whether the alleged relationship was consensual or otherwise

It clarified that its observations concerned only the maintainability and continuation of the proceedings in the circumstances presented and were not findings on the truth of the allegations.