Karnataka High Court
Jayanthi G vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2163 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
JAYANTHI G.,
W/O MALLIKARJUN M.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RAMKY ONE FLAT
NO.A-004, AVALAHALLI
DODDABALLAPURA MAIN ROAD,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.S.JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SANJEEVINI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
J KARISHETTY BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION,
Location: High BENGALURU CITY,
Court of
Karnataka REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. XXXXXX
XXXXXX
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
SMT.KEERTHI REDDY, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI PADMANABHA J., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C. NO.446/2026
(ANNEXURE - D), PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LIII ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BANGALORE ARISING OUT
OF C.C.NO.32082/2025 IN CRIME NO.73/2025 (ANNEXURE A)
OF RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S
64(1), 68, 351(2) OF THE BNS AND 67, 67(A) OF IT ACT
DATED 27.08.2025, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NO.2 IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner/accused no.2 stands at the doors of this
Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C No. 32082 of
2025 registered for offences punishable under
Sections 64(1), 68, 351(2) of the BNS and Sections 67 and 67A
of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act‘ for short).
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
2.1. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. It is the case
of the prosecution that a complaint comes to be registered by
the 2nd respondent on 30-08-2025 alleging that she was
working with the accused No.1, the proprietor of Arya Gold
Company between the years 2023 and 2025 in the post of
Senior Manager. During the said period, one of the subscriber
by name Yogesh called upon and informed the 2nd respondent
that he had hypothecated certain gold ornaments in Muthoot
finance and had requested the complainant to purchase the
said gold on behalf of the Company, towards which the
complainant is said to have transferred ₹7,80,000/- to the
account of Yogesh and asked him to get the gold released from
Muthoot finance. Thereafter, the said Yogesh said to have not
responded to the complainant and thereby accused No.1
started harassing the complainant stating that she has caused
loss to the Company. The further allegation in the complaint is
that on a particular day, accused no.1 took the complainant to
a particular hotel and had committed rape and said to have
repeated the said act several times.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
2.2. The petitioner is not accused no.1 in the case at
hand, but she is the wife of accused no.1, i.e., accused no.2.
The allegation against the petitioner/accused no.2 is that the
sexually explicit material or the activities between the husband
and the complainant were allegedly shot on a mobile phone and
those videos are circulated by the petitioner to the husband of
the complainant and to her relatives. Based upon the aforesaid
incidents of commission of rape by the husband/accused no.1
and the transmission of that explicit material by accused no.
2/the present petitioner, the aforesaid crime comes to be
registered. The police conduct investigation and file a charge
sheet against the accused nos. 1 and 2. Filing of the charge
sheet is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject
petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel Sri B. S. Jeevan Kumar
appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor Sri B N Jagadeesh, appearing for the 1st
respondent/State and Smt Keerthi Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
4. The learned counsel Sri. B. S. Jeevan Kumar submits
that while the offence of commission of rape is against the
accused no.1/husband, there is no allegation that would touch
upon any of the ingredients of either Section 351(2) of the BNS
or Section 67, 67A of IT Act. He would submit that perusal of
the complaint, the summary of the charge sheet or even the
statements recorded under Section 164(5) of CrPC of the
complainant would not reveal any allegations against the
petitioner. All the allegations are goaded against the
husband/accused no.1 is his submission.
5. Contrariwise, the learned counsel Smt. Keerthi Reddy
appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant taking this Court
through those very documents, i.e., the complaint, the
summary of the charge sheet and the statement recorded
before the learned Magistrate under Section 164(5) of CrPC
would submit that there are clear allegations of transmission of
material of sexual acts between the complainant and the
accused no.1. She would submit that the complainant has
suffered serious prejudice on account of the transmission of the
sexually explicit material between the accused no. 1 and the
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
complainant to the husband and relatives of the complainant.
Therefore, the learned counsel submits that a clear case of
transmission of sexually explicit material as obtaining under
Section 67A of the IT Act is made out against the petitioner.
This Court, in excise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
CrPC/528 of the BNS, should not interdict or obliterate the
proceedings against the petitioner even, as the offences are
grave and she is an accomplice in crime.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Sri. B. N. Jagadeesh would also take this Court through the
charge sheet material to contend that this Court should not
interfere with the proceedings before the concerned Court,
owing to the gravity of the offence committed even by the
accused no. 2/the petitioner herein. He would place reliance
upon the statement recorded before the learned Magistrate
under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent, would in unison, seek dismissal of the petition.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material on record.
8. The facts, dates, and the interconnected chain of
events, as narrated hereinabove, stand firmly embedded in the
record and, therefore, do not warrant reiteration in exhaustive
detail. The petitioner before this Court is accused No. 2, the
wife of accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 is the proprietor of Arya
Gold Company. The complainant had joined the said
establishment and was serving in the capacity of a Senior
Manager. It is alleged that during the course of such
employment, accused No. 1, the husband of the petitioner,
committed acts of sexual assault upon the complainant–not
once, but twice–by employing deceit, coercion, and
manipulation. The allegations against accused No. 1 are grave,
disturbing, and deeply unsettling; it is, however, for accused
No. 1 to establish his innocence before the competent Court in
accordance with law. The present lis, however, concerns
accused No. 2 – the petitioner herein. Therefore, it becomes
necessary to notice the genesis of the complaint and the
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
sequence of allegations that triggered the registration of the
crime. The complaint, in substance, narrates the circumstances
that culminated in the institution of criminal proceedings. . The
complaint reads as follows:
"ರವ ೆ,
ೕ ಇ ೆಕ
ಬಸ ೇಶ ರ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
ಇಂದ,
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
#ಷಯ: ಆಯ' ೋ)* ಕಂಪ,ಯ -ಾ ೕಕ.ಾದ ಮ 01ಾಜು' ಮತು4
ಅವರ 6ೆಂಡ89ಾದ ಜಯಂ8 ರವರು #ರುದ: ದೂರು.
*****
;ಾನು <ೕಲ>ಂಡ #?ಾಸದ ಾ@ ೆ ಮ;ೆಯ 0 ಈ ೆB ಸು-ಾರು 3 8ಂಗC,ಂದ
;ಾನು, ನನD ಮಕ>?ಾದ ಭೂF1ಾ ಎಂ ಮತು4 <ೕಘ;ಾ ರವರುಗ?ೆ ಂI ೆ
ಾಸ ಾJದು:1ೊಂಡು, .ಾKಾLನಗರದ <MೊNೕ Oೆ ೕಷ ಬCPರುವ <MೊNೕ Fಂಗ)
1ೋ ವQಂ'R OೆSೕ ನ 0 ಪNTೆUೕಕ ಾJ Vೕ,ಯ -ಾU;ೇಜ ಆJ ಕತ'ವU
,ವ'Wಸು84ರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ;ಾನು ಈ WಂXೆ 2023;ೇ ಇಸ#Pಂದ 2025;ೇ ಜೂ 8ಂಗಳ
12;ೇ Tಾ ೕQನವ.ೆಗೂ ನವರಂR ಸಕ') ಬC ಇರುವ ಆಯ' ೋ)* ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0
V,ಯ -ಾU;ೇಜ ಆJ 1ೆಲಸ -ಾ@1ೊಂ@Xೆ:ನು.
;ಾನು ಈ WಂXೆ ಕತ’ವU ,ವ’Wಸು84ದ: ಆಯ’ ೋ)* ಕಂಪ,ಯ -ಾ ೕಕ.ಾದ
ಮ 01ಾಜು’ ರವರು ;ಾನು 1ೆಲಸ -ಾಡು84ದ:ಂತಹ ಸಂದಭ’ದ 0 #Zೇಷ ಾJ
ನನD;ೊDಂI ೆ ಅಸಭU ಾJ ವ8’ಸು84ದ:ರು. ;ಾನು ಈ ಬ ೆB ಅವರನುD ಪN[DV, ಪN8.ೋಧ
ವUಕ4ಪ@VXಾಗ ತನD ಬC ೇ1ಾದಷು ಹಣ#ರುವ^XಾJ, ಆದ.ೆ ತನ ೆ ತನD ಪ8DPಂದ
ಸುಖ#ಲ0 ತನ ೆ -ಾನVಕ ಾJ Qರುಕುಳ ಾಗು84Xೆ ತನD ಪ8D ಸು-ಾರು 5 ವಷ’ಗCಂದ
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
ೇ.ೆಯವ.ೊಂI ೆ ಸಂಪಕ’ 6ೊಂIದು:, ನನ ೆ ;ೆಮ`I 6ಾ?ಾJXೆ. ,ೕನು ಸ ಲS ಅಡ*
-ಾqÉÆÌÃ ,ನ ೆ ಸಂಬಳ KಾV4 -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ ನನ ೆ ಆFೕಷaಡು*84ದ:ರು.
ಇXಾದ ಸು-ಾರು 9 8ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ನಮ` ಹ?ೆಯ ಾNಹಕ aೕ ೇb
ಎಂಬುವವರು ನನ ೆ ಕ.ೆ -ಾ@ Tಾನು ಈ ಾಗcೇ ತನD d;ಾDಭರಣಗಳನುD 1ೆಂ ೇ ಯ
ಮುತೂ4e fೈ;ಾ ನ 0 ಅಡ-ಾನ#h ರುವ^XಾJ, ಆ d;ಾDಭರಣಗಳನುD ,ೕವ^
i@V1ೊಂಡು ಖ ೕI -ಾ@1ೊCj, ಆ d;ಾDಭರಣಗC ೆ ತಗುಲುವ ಉCದ ಹಣವನುD ನನ ೆ
1ೊ@ ಎಂದು 1ೋ 1ೊಂಡನು. ಆಗ ;ಾನು ಸಹ ನಮ` -ಾ ೕಕ.ೊಂI ೆ ಚd’V, aೕ ೇb
ಎಂಬುವವರ ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉUÉ 7 ಲmದ 80 Oಾ#ರ ಹಣವನುD ಆತನ nಾTೆ ೆ 6ಾQ,
ಅಡ-ಾನ#h ರುವ ಹಣವನುD ©r¹PÉÆAqÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §¤ß ಎಂದು ಆತ, ೆ
8CVXೆನು. aೕ ೇb ಹಣ ಪoೆzÀ £ÀAತರ ನನD ಕ.ೆ ೆ ಸSಂpVXೇ ತcೆಮ.ೆV1ೊಂಡರು. ಈ
#qಾರ ಾJ ನಮ` ೋ)* ಕಂಪ,ಯ -ಾ ೕಕ.ಾದ ಮ 01ಾಜು’ ರವರು ;ಾ;ೇ ಅದ1ೆ>
1ಾರಣ ೆಂದು, aೕ ೇbರವರು ,ೕ@ದ ಅಷು ಹಣವನುD ,ೕ;ೇ ಭ V1ೊಡ ೇ1ೆಂದು ಆ ಾಗ
ನನ ೆ -ಾನVಕ ಾJ WಂOೆ ,ೕಡು84ದ:ರು. WೕJರುವ 0 ಮ 01ಾಜು’ ಯವರು 2024;ೇ
ಜುcೈ 8ಂಗಳ ಒಂದು Iನ ನನDನುD aೕ ೇb ರವ ೆ ,ೕ@ರುವ ಹಣದ #qಾರ ಾJ
-ಾತ;ಾಡ ೇಕು ಬ,D ಎಂದು ನನDನುD ತಮ` iC ಬಣsದ ವ;ಾ’ 1ಾ ನ 0 ಕೂ V1ೊಂಡು
.ಾKಾLನಗರ ಏ 9ಾ ಸುTಾ4@V1ೊಂಡು -ಾತ;ಾಡುTಾ4 ನನ ೆ ಕು@ಯಲು ಜೂU
,ೕ@ದು:, ;ಾನು ಅದನುD ಕು@ಯು84ದ:ಂTೆuೕ ನನ ೆ ಸ ಲS ,Xೆ: ಬಂದ ೕ8ಯ 0
vಾಷ ಾPತು. ಆ ನಂತರ ನನDನುD ಮ 01ಾಜು’ ಯವರು ೕ ೆNೕw ಎಂಬ nಾಸJೕ
6ೋMೇ) ೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ, 6ೋMೇ)ನ VಬxಂpಗC ೆ ನನDನುD ಆತನ ಪ8D
ಜಯಂ8 ಎಂದು ಪ ಚPV, ರೂಂyಂದನುD ಪoೆದು ನನDನುD ರೂಂ ೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ
ನನD ಇqೆzಯ #ರುದ: ಾJ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂvೋಗವನುD -ಾ@ರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಆನಂತರ ಮ 01ಾಜು’
ರವರು ನನ ೆ ;ಾನು ,;ೊDಂI ೆ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂvೋಗ -ಾ@ರುವಂತಹ ಸ,D ೇಶವನುD ನನD
{ ೈ)ನ 0 #@aೕ -ಾ@1ೊಂ@Xೆ:ೕ;ೆ. ,ೕನು ;ಾನು 9ಾ ಾಗ ಕ.ೆದರೂ ನ;ೊDಂI ೆ
ಬರ ೇಕು, ಸುಖ 1ೊಡ ೇಕು ಇಲ0 ಾದ.ೆ ,ನD #@aೕವನುD Oಾ-ಾLಕ KಾಲTಾಣದ 0
ಹ iಡುವ^XಾJ ನನ ೆ ೆದ 1ೆ 6ಾQರುTಾ4.ೆ.
ಇXಾದ ಸು-ಾರು 02 8ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ;ಾನು ಗ|’}9ಾJದು:, ಈ #qಾರವನುD
;ಾನು ಮ 01ಾಜು’ ಯವ ೆ 8CVದು:, ಆತನು ನನDನುD ನಮ` ಕಂಪ,ಯ ಬCPದ: ನಚ’
ಆಸSTೆN ೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ ಅ 0ನ ಆಸSTೆNಯ ೈದU ೆ Tಾನು ಈ1ೆಯ ಪ8uಂದು
8CV, ತನD ಸWಯನುD 6ಾQ ನನ ೆ ಅ ಾಷ’ -ಾ@VರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಆನಂತರ ನನ ೆ
ಆ.ೋಗUದ 0 ಏರು ಾ.ಾಗು84ದ: 1ಾರಣ ;ಾನು ಸದ ೋ)* ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0uೕ 1ೆಲಸ
ಮುಂದುವ.ೆಸುವ^ದು ಸ ಯಲ0 ಎಂದು aೕdV. ಮ 01ಾಜು’ ಯವರ ಬC TೆರC ;ಾನು
Oೈ -ಾಡುವ ಬ ೆB 8CVXೆ ಆಗ ಆತನು ,ೕನು ನಮ` ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 1ೆಲಸ iಟ .ೆ ;ಾವ^
ನಮ` ಕಂಪ,ಯ;ೆDೕ ಮುಚ• ೇ1ಾಗುತ4Xೆ ಅಲ0Xೇ ನನD ಪ8DaಂI ೆ
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
ಸಂಬಂಧ#ಟು 1ೊಂ@ರುವ ಪ^ರುಷ ತನD ಸಹಚರ.ೊಂI ೆ Oೇ 1ೊಂಡು ನನ ೆ ಹcೆ0 -ಾ@,
1ೊcೆ ೆ ಪNಯ8DVದು: ಈ ಬ ೆB ಈ ಾಗcೇ [Nೕ.ಾಂಪ^ರ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ 0
{.ಸಂ.44/2025 ೕTಾU 1ೇಸು XಾಖcಾJರುವ^XಾJ, ತನ ೆ #ಪ ೕತ -ಾನVಕ 6ಾಗೂ
XೈWಕ WಂOೆ9ಾJತು4 Tಾನು ಆಸSTೆNಯ 0 dQTೆ ಪoೆಯು84ರುವ^XಾJ 8CV ಇಂತಹ
ಸಮಯದ 0 ನನDನುD iಟು 6ೋಗIೕ ಎಂದು ನನDನುD #ನಂ8V1ೊಂಡರು.
ಇXಾದ ಸು-ಾರು ಒಂದು ಾರದ ನಂತರ ಸು-ಾರು 6-00 ಗಂMೆಯ ಸಮಯದ 0
ಮ 01ಾಜು’ ರವರು ನನD 1ಾUi ೆ ಬಂದು Tಾನು ಈ Iನ ,;ೊDಂI ೆ ಮುಕ4 ಾJ ತನD
6ೆಂಡ8ಯ ಎಲ0 #qಾರಗಳನುD -ಾತ;ಾಡ ೇಕು. ,ೕವ^ ನಮ` ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 Oೈ
-ಾಡುವ^XಾJ 8CVI:ೕ.ಾ. ಈ Iನ ;ಾನು ಒ?ೆjಯ ಮೂ€ನ 0 ಇI:ೕ, ಎಂದು ನನDನುD
ತix1ೊಂಡು ,ೕನು ಈ Iನ ನ;ೊDಂI ೆ ಸಂTೋಷIಂದ ಸಹಕ Vದ.ೆ ,ನDನುD ಈ Iನ
ೕ• -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ 8CV, ನ;ೊDಂI ೆ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂvೋಗ
-ಾ@ರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಇXಾದ -ಾರ;ೇ Iನ ಮ 0ಮ 01ಾಜು’ ರವರು ಕ.ೆ -ಾ@ ,ೕನು ಒಂದು
8ಂಗಳದರೂ ;ೋhೕ ‚ uೕ€ ಆJ ನಮ` ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 1ೆಲಸ -ಾಡು ಆಗ ;ಾನು ,ೕವ^
;ೆ;ೆD Tಾ;ೇ ಇXೇ cಾ Iನ ೆಂದು 8CVI:ೕ.ಾ ;ಾ;ೇ1ೆ ಬರ ೇಕು ಎಂದು 1ೇCXೆ ಆಗ
ಆತನು ಅh0ೕ 20 Iನ ಾದರೂ -ಾಡು, ಇನುD ಮುಂXೆ ;ಾನು ,ನ ೆ Tೊಂದ.ೆ
,ೕಡುವ^Iಲ0 ೆಂದು ಭರವOೆ ,ೕ@ದು:, ಅದರಂTೆ ;ಾನು 2025;ೇ ಜೂ 8ಂಗಳ 12;ೇ
Tಾ ೕ„ನವ.ೆಗೂ ಆಯ’ ೋ)* ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 1ೆಲಸ ,ವ’WV 6ೊರ ಬಂIರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ.
ಇXಾದ ಸು-ಾರು 03 Iನಗಳ ನಂತರ ;ಾನು ಪNಸು4ತ ಕತ’ವU ,ವ’Wಸು84ರುವ <MೊNೕ
Fಂಗ) 1ೋ ಪQಂ’R OೆSೕ ನ 0 1ೆಲಸ1ೆ> Oೇ 1ೊಂ@ರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ.
;ಾನು 6ೊಸXಾJ 1ೆಲಸ1ೆ> Oೇ 1ೊಂ@ರುವ^ದನುD ಸWಸcಾಗXೇ ಮ 01ಾಜು’
6ಾಗೂ ಆತನ ಪ8D ಜಯಂ8ಯವರು ಾ0 -ಾ@ ¢£ÁAPÀ:28/06/2025gÀAzÀÄ ;ಾನು
ಮ 01ಾಜು’ ರವ.ೊಂI ೆ ಇರುವಂತಹ ಅ[0ೕಲ #@aೕಗಳನುD ಜಯಂ8 ರವರು ತನD
{ ೈ),ಂದ ಾMಾ w ಮೂಲಕ ನನD vಾವನವ.ಾದ [Nೕ #;ೋ… ರವರ { ೈ) ನಂ.
9916702414 ೆ ಕಳ†VರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಆ ಾJ ನನD ಇqೆ•ೕ ೆ #ರುದ: ಾJ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂvೋಗ
-ಾ@, ನನD nಾಸJೕ ಅ[0ೕಲ #@aೕಗಳನುD ನನD ಸಂಬಂpಕ ೆ ಕಳ†WVರುವ
ಮ 01ಾಜು’ 6ಾಗೂ ಆತನ ಪ8D ಜಯಂ8ರವರ #ರುದ: 1ಾನೂನು ಕNಮ ಜರುJಸ ೇ1ೆಂದು
ಈ ಮೂಲಕ 1ೋ 1ೊಳ†jTೆ4ೕ;ೆ.
ತಮ` #Zಾ V,
ಸW/-”
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026HC-KAR
The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The
summary of the charge sheet, as obtaining in column number
17 reads as follows:
“17. 1ೇVನ ಸಂ‰ಪ4 Oಾ.ಾಂಶ
Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಬಸ ೇಶ ರನಗರ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹI:ನ i.ಇ.ಎಂ.ಎ)
cೇಔe, ಅ{ೕಘ ಅ ಾಟ'<ಂe, ಎ ಾ0‹, 3;ೇ ಮಹ@ಯ ನಂ:303 ರ 0 ಾಸ#zÀÄÝ,
6ಾ ಐV ೋ)*, ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 -ಾU;ೇLಂR ಾಟ’ನ ಆJ 1ೆಲಸ
-ಾ@1ೊಂ@ರುTಾ4.ೆ, Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಈ WಂXೆ 2023;ೇ ಇಸ#Pಂದ 2025;ೇ ಜೂ
8ಂಗಳ 12;ೇ Tಾ ೕQನವ.ೆಗೂ .ಾKಾLನಗರ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹI:ನ ನವರಂR
ಸಕ’) ಬC ಇರುವ ಆಯ’ ೋ)*, ಕಂಪ,ಯ ,0 V,ಯ -ಾU;ೇಜ ಆJ 1ೆಲಸ
-ಾ@1ೊಂ@ದ:ರು. ಸದ ಆಯ’ ೋ)* ಕಂಪ,ಯ -ಾ ೕಕ;ಾದ 1ಾಲಂ ನಂ:12ರ ,0
ನಮೂIVರುವ ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು 1ೆಲಸ -ಾಡು84ದ:ಂತಹ ಸಂದಭ’ದ 0 Oಾ‰-
1 ರವ.ೊಂI ೆ ಅಸಭU ಾJ ವ8’ಸು84ದ:ನು. ಈ ಬ ೆ,, Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ ೆ ಪN[DV,
ಪN8.ೋಧ ವUಕ4ಪ@VXಾಗ ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು ತನD ಬC ೇ1ಾದಷು ಹಣ#ರುವ^XಾJ, ಆದ.ೆ
ತನ ೆ ತನD ಪ8DPಂದ ಸುಖ#ಲ0 ತನ ೆ -ಾನVಕ ಾJ Qರುಕುಳ ಾಗು84Xೆ ತನD ಪ8D
ಸು-ಾರು 5 ವಷ’ಗCಂದ ೇ.ೆಯವ.ೊಂI ೆ ಸಂಪಕ’ 6ೊಂIದು:, ನನ ೆ ;ೆಮ`I
6ಾ?ಾJXೆ, ,ೕನು ಸ ಲS ಅqÀÓ -ಾqÉÆÌÃ ,ನ ೆ ಸಂಬಳ KಾV4 -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ Oಾ‰-1
ರವ ೆ ಆFೕಷaಡು84ದ:ನು. ಇXಾದ ಸು-ಾರು 9 8ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರ ಹ?ೆಯ
ಾNಹಕ aೕ ೇb ಎಂಬುವವರು Oಾ‰-1 ರವ ೆ Tಾನು ಈ ಾಗcೇ ತನD d;ಾDಭರಣಗಳನುD
1ೆಂ ೇ ಯ ಮುತೂ4e fೈ;ಾ ನ 0, ಅಡ-ಾನ#h ರುವ^XಾJ, ಆ d;ಾDಭರಣಗಳನುD ,ೕವ^
i@V1ೊಂಡು ಖ ೕI -ಾ@1ೊCj,, ಆ d;ಾDಭರಣಗC ೆ ತಗುಲುವ ಉCದ ಹಣವನುD ನನ ೆ
1ೊ@ ಎಂದು 1ೋ 1ೊಂಡ <ೕ.ೆ ೆ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚aಂI ೆ ಈ ಬ ೆB ಚd’V,
aೕ ೇb ಎಂಬುವವರ ಾUಂ‹ nಾTೆ ೆ 7 ಲmದ 80 Oಾ#ರ ಹಣವನುD ಆತನ nಾTೆ ೆ
6ಾQV, ಅಡ-ಾನ#h ರುವ ಆಭರಣಗಳನುD i@V1ೊಂಡು Tೆ ೆದು1ೊಂಡು ಬ,D ಎಂದು
ಆತ, ೆ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು 8CVರುTಾ4.ೆ. aೕ ೇb ಹಣ ಪoೆದ ನಂತರ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರ ಕ.ೆ ೆ
ಸSಂpVXೇ ತcೆಮ.ೆV1ೊಂoಾಗ ಈ #qಾರ ಾJ ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು Oಾ‰-1 ರವ ೆ ,ೕ;ೇ
ಇದ:1ೆ> 1ಾರಣ ೆಂದು, aೕ ೇb ರವ ೆ ,ೕ@ದ ಅಷು ಹಣವನುD ,ೕ;ೇ ಭ V1ೊಡ ೇ1ೆಂದು
ಆ ಾಗ Oಾ‰-1 ರವ ೆ -ಾನVಕ ಾJ WಂOೆ ,ೕಡು84ದ:ನು.
WೕJರುವ 0, ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು 2024;ೇ ಜುcೈ 8ಂಗಳ ಒಂದು Iನ Oಾ‰-1 ರವ ೆ
aೕ ೇb ರವ ೆ ,ೕ@ರುವ ಹಣದ #qಾರ ಾJ -ಾತ;ಾಡ ೇಕು ಬ,D ಎಂದು Oಾ‰-1
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026HC-KAR
ರವರನುD ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು ತನD iC ಬಣsದ ವ;ಾ’ 1ಾ ನ 0 ಕೂ V1ೊಂಡು .ಾKಾLನಗರ
ಏ 9ಾ ಸುTಾ4@V1ೊಂಡು -ಾತ;ಾಡುTಾ4 Oಾ‰-1 ರವ ೆ ಕು@ಯಲು ಜೂU ,ೕ@zÀÄÝ,
Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಅದನುD ಕು@ಯು84ದ:ಂTೆuೕ ಸ ಲS ,Xೆ: ಬಂದ ೕ8ಯ 0 vಾಸ ಾJದು:, ಆ
ನಂತರ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರನುD ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು .ಾKಾLನಗರ 2;ೇ ಾ0‹ ನ 0ರುವ ನಂ:84, @
ಾNಂ€ 1ೋರ) cಾ€•, ೕ ೆNೕw .ೆOೊ ೕ ಾ ಇ 0 ೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ, 6ೋMೇ)
ನ Oಾ ಗತ1ಾರ.ಾದ Oಾ‰-23 ರವ ೆ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರನುD ತನD ಪ8D ಜಯಂ8 ಎಂದು 8CV,
ಸದ 6ೋMೆ) ನ 3;ೇ ಮಹ@ಯ 0 ರೂŽ ನಂ:305 ಅನುD ಬು‹ -ಾ@ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರನುD
ಸದ ರೂಂ ೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರ ಇqೆzಯ #ರುದ• ಾJ ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು
cೈಂJಕ ಸಂvೋಗವನುD -ಾ@ರುTಾ4;ೆ. ಆನಂತರ ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು Oಾ‰-1 ರವ ೆ ;ಾನು
,;ೊDಂI ೆ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂvೋಗ -ಾ@ರುವಂತಹ ಸ,D ೇಶವನುD ನನD { ೈ) ನ 0
#@aೕ -ಾ@1ೊಂ@Xೆ:ೕ;ೆ. ,ೕನು ;ಾನು 9ಾ ಾಗ ಕ.ೆದರೂ ನ;ೊDಂI ೆ ಬರ ೇಕು, ಸುಖ
1ೊಡ ೇಕು ಇಲ0 ಾದ.ೆ ,ನD #@aೕವನುD Oಾ-ಾLಕ KಾಲTಾಣದ 0 ಹ iಡುವ^XಾJ
Oಾ‰-1 ರವ ೆ ೆದ 1ೆ 6ಾQರುTಾ4;ೆ.
ಇXಾದ ಸು-ಾರು 02 8ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಗ|’}9ಾJದು:, ಈ
#qಾರವನುD Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ ೆ 8CVದು:, ಆಗ ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು Oಾ‰-1
ರವರನುD .ಾKಾLನಗರ 2;ೇ ಾ‹ ನ 0ರುವ ನಚ’ ಆಸSTೆN ೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ ಅ 0ನ
ೈದU.ಾದ Oಾ‰-24 ರವ ೆ ಈ1ೆಯು ನನD ಪ8D ಎಂದು 8CVzÀÄÝ, ಆಗ Oಾ‰-24 ರವರು
Oಾ‰-1 ರವ ೆ ಪ ೕ‰V ಅ ಾಷ’ ಆಗುವ -ಾTೆNಗಳನುD ,ೕ@ರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಆ ನಂತರ Oಾ‰-1
ರವ ೆ ಆ.ೋಗUದ 0 ಏರು ೇ.ಾಗು84ದ: 1ಾರಣ ಸದ ೋ)* ಕಂಪ,ಯ uೕ 1ೆಲಸ
ಮುಂದುವ.ೆಸುವ^ದು ಸ ಯಲ0 ಎಂದು aೕdV Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯ ಬC TೆರC
Oೈ -ಾಡುವ ಬ ೆB 8CVದು:, ಆಗ ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು Oಾ‰-1 ರವರನುD ಉXೆ:ೕ[V, ,ೕನು
ನಮ` ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 1ೆಲಸ iಟ .ೆ ;ಾವ^ ನಮ` ಕಂಪ,ಯ;ೆDೕ ಮುಚ• ೇ1ಾಗುತ4Xೆ ಅಲ0Xೇ ನನD
ಪ8DaಂI ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ#ಟು 1ೊಂ@ರುವ ಪ^ರುಷ ತನD ಸಹಚರ.ೊಂI ೆ Oೇ 1ೊಂಡು ನನ ೆ
Lcೆ0 -ಾ@, 1ೊcೆ ೆ ಪNಯ8DVದು: ಈ ಬ ೆB ಈ ಾಗcೇ [Nೕ.ಾಂಪ^ರ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ 0
1ೇಸು XಾಖcಾJರುವ^XಾJ, ತನ ೆ #ಪ ೕತ -ಾನVಕ 6ಾಗೂ XೈWಕ »AOೆ9ಾJತು4.
Tಾನು ಆಸSTೆNಯ 0 dQTೆ ಪoೆಯು84ರುವ^XಾJ 8CV ಇಂತಹ ಸಮಯದ 0 ನನDನುD iಟು
6ೋಗIೕ ಎಂದು Oಾ‰-1 ರವರನುD #ನಂ8V1ೊಂ@ರುTಾ4;ೆ. ಇXಾದ ಸು-ಾರು ಒಂದು
ಾರದ ನಂತರ ಸಂKೆ 6-00 ಗಂMೆಯ ಸಮಯದ 0 ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು Oಾ‰-1 ರವರ 1ಾUi ೆ
ಬಂದು Tಾನು ಈ Iನ ,;ೊDಂI ೆ ಮುಕ4 ಾJ ತನD 6ೆಂಡ8ಯ ಎcಾ0 #qಾರಗಳನುD
-ಾತ;ಾಡ ೇಕು, ,ೕವ^ ನಮ` ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 Oೈ -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ 8CVI:ೕ.ಾ, ಈ Iನ
;ಾನು ಒ?ೆjಯ ಮೂಡD 0 ಇI:ೕ, ಎಂದು Oಾ‰-1 ರವರನುD ತix1ೊಂಡು ,ೕನು ಈ Iನ
ನ;ೊDಂI ೆ ಸಂTೋಷIಂದ ಸಹಕ Vದ.ೆ ,ನDನುD ಈ Iನ j°Ãªï -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ 8CV,
Oಾ‰-1 ರವ.ೊಂI ೆ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂvೋಗ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ J1
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026HC-KAR
DgÉÆæAiÀÄ UÉÆïïØ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀA¥À¤UÉ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ
¸ÉÃjPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು 6ೊಸXಾJ ೇ.ೆ ಕoೆ 1ೆಲಸ1ೆ> Oೇ 1ೊಂ@ರುವ^ದನುD & ತನD
ಗಂಡನ KೊTೆ ಅ;ೈ8ಕ ಸಂಬಂಧ 6ೊಂIದ:ನುD ಸWಸcಾಗXೇ 1ಾಲಂ ನಂ:12 ರ 0
ನಮೂIVರುವ ಎ2 ಆ.ೋ‚ತಳ† ಾ0 -ಾ@ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚aಂI ೆ
ಇರುವ ಅ[0ೕಲ #@aೕಗಳನುD ಎ2 ಆ.ೋ‚ತಳ† I;ಾಂಕ:28/06/2025 ರಂದು Oಾ‰-1
ರವರ ಗಂಡ;ಾದ Oಾ‰-31 ಮತು4 ತಮ`;ಾದ Oಾ‰-36 ರವ ೆ ತನD { ೈ) ನಂಬ
,ಂದ ಾMಾ w ಮೂಲಕ ಕಳ†WVರುವ^ದು ತ,nೆPಂದ ಮತು4 ಲಭU Oಾ’ಾ’ಾರಗCಂದ
ದೃಢಪh ರುತ4Xೆ.
ಆದ: ಂದ ಎ1 ಮತು4 ಎ2 ಆ.ೋ‚ಗಳ #ರುದ• <ೕಲ>ಂಡ ಕಲಂ ಗಳ ೕvÀå -ಾನU
;ಾU9ಾಲಯ1ೆ> Xೋ•ಾ.ೋಪ ಾ ಪh ಯನುD , ೇIV1ೊಂ@Xೆ.
, ೇದ;ೆ: ಸದ ಪNಕರಣದ 0 6ೆd•ನ Oಾ’ಾ’ಾರಗಳ† ಲಭU ಾದ 0, 6ಾಗೂ ಎ-.ಎ .ಎ)
ವರIಗಳನುD ಕಲಂ:193 i.ಎ .ಎ .ಎ . ಅ@ಯ 0 6ೆಚು•ವ Xೋ•ಾ.ೋಪ ಾ
ಪh ಯನುD -ಾನU ;ಾU9ಾಲಯ1ೆ> , ೇIV1ೊಳjcಾಗುವ^ದು.”
In between these two dates, the concerned Court records
statement of the complainant under Section 164(5) of the
Cr.P.C. It reads as follows:
“PÉæöÊA £ÀA.:73/2025
¢£ÁAPÀ: 22.07.2025
.ಾKಾLನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ.ಾKಾLನಗರ ೕ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ {ಕದ:< ಸಂnೆU 73/2025 ರ ತ,nಾp1ಾ ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು I.22-07-2025 ರ 1ೋ 1ೆಯ <ೕ.ೆ ೆ Oಾ‰ಯ 6ೇC1ೆಯನುD
Xಾಖ V1ೊಳjಲು [Nೕಮ8. dªÀÄÄ£Á ಡಬೂ0–.6ೆ˜.V.ನಂ. 13236 .ಾKಾLನಗರ
ೕ ೕ ಾ ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇವರು ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು ಬಂIರುTಾ4.ೆ.
Oಾ‰ ೆ ಪN-ಾಣ ವಚನವನುD vೋIಸcಾPತು.
vೋIಸcಾPತು
6ೆಸರು XXXXXX
ತಂXೆಯ 6ೆಸರು XXXXXX
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
ವಯಸು XXXXXX
ಉXೊUೕಗ nಾಸJ 1ೆಲಸ (ಐV ೋ)*)
ಾಸಸ™ಳ XXXXXX
(Oಾ‰ ಸ ಇqೆz Pಂದ ತಮ` 6ೇC1ೆಯನುD ,ೕಡಲು ಬಂIರುTಾ4.ೆ ತಮ ೆ
6ೇC1ೆಯನುD ,ೕಡಲು 9ಾರು ಸಹ ಒTಾ4ಯ ಪ@Vರುವ^Iಲ0 6ಾಗೂ ನನ ೆ ಇXೇ ೕ8
6ೇC1ೆ 1ೊಡ ೇ1ೆಂದು 9ಾರು 6ೇCಲ0 ಎಂದು 8CVರುTಾ4.ೆ)i.ಎ . ಎ .ಎ . ಕಲಂ 183 ರ@ಯ 0 6ೇC1ೆ,
ಕ?ೆದ 6 ವಷ’ಗCಂದ ೋ¯ïØ šೕಲ*ನ 0 ಇದು: ಆಯ’ ೋ¯ïØ ನ 0 2023 K¦æ¯ï
8ಂಗಳ 0 W ಯ ವUವOಾ™ಪಕ?ೆಂದು Oೇ ರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ಇದQ>ಂತ ಪ›ವ’ದ 0 ಪNTೆUೕಕ ಾJ ಈ
ಉXೊUೕಗ -ಾಡು84ದು: ನನ ೆ ಆಯ’ ೋಲ* ಕಂಪ,ಯ ಮ 01ಾಜು’ನರವರು ಅವರ
ಕಂಪ, ೆ Oೇರಲು ಆ6ಾ ನವನುD 1ೊh ದು: ಅವರ 1ೆಲಸದ ಆಫ ಉತ4ಮ ಾJದ: 1ಾರಣ ಮತು4
ನನ ೆ ರm ೆ ೇ1ಾJದ: 1ಾರಣ ಸದ ಕಂಪ, ೆ Oೇ Xೆ. ಸದ ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 Oೇ ದ 2-3
8ಂಗC ೆ ನನD ಅನುಭವವನD ‘ಾ.ೆ ಎ.ೆದು ಆ ಕಂಪ,ಯನುD Mಾw 2 ;ೇ Oಾ™ನದ 0
ಬರುವಂTೆ -ಾ@Xೆ:. ಇದ ಂದ -ಾ ೕಕರು ನನDನುD ಎಲ0ರ ಮುಂXೆಯೂ 6ೊಗಳ†84ದು: ಅXೇ
ಸಮಯದ 0 ಅವರು ;ೋಡುವ V™8ಯೂ ಸಹ ಬದcಾJರುತ4Xೆ.
2. ನಂತರ ;ಾನು ಅವರ ಬC ಇದರ ಬ ೆB ಚd’V ;ಾನು ಆ ೕ8ಯ ಮW?ೆ ಅಲ0
6ಾಗೂ ನನ ೆ ೆ?ೆದ ಮಕ>Cರುತ4Xೆ ಎಂದು 8CVದು: ಅದ1ೆ> ಅವರು ಅವರ 6ೆಂಡ8ಯು ಕ?ೆದ
5-6 ವಷ’ಗCಂದ ೇ.ೆ ಪ^ರುಷ;ೊಂI ೆ ಅಕNಮ ಸಂಬಂಧವನುD 6ೊಂIದು: ನನD ಬC
ಸಂಬಂಧವನುD -ಾ@1ೊಳ†jವಂTೆ 6ಾಗೂ ಈಗ ,ೕ@84ರುವ ಸಂಬಳQ>ಂತ 6ೆd•ನ ಸಂಬಳ
,ೕಡುವ^XಾJ 6ಾಗೂ Tಾ ೇ ಕಂಪ,ಯನುD iಟು 6ೋದ.ೆ ನಷ ಉಂMಾಗುತ4Xೆ ಎಂದು
8CVದರು. ಅದ1ೆ> ;ಾನು .ಾLೕ;ಾ< 1ೊಡುವ^XಾJ 6ೇCXೆ. ಅದ1ೆ> ಅವರು ಈ ೕ8
ಎ)ಲ -ಾಡುವ^Iಲ0 ಎಂದು 6ೇCದರು. ಅಷ ರ 0uೕ ಯಲಹಂಕದ ZೆNೕಯ ೋಲ*
ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 ಕಳವ^ ಪNಕರಣ ಆJದು: ಅವರ ಗಮನವ^ ಸದ ಪNಕರಣದ ಕoೆ 6ೋPತು.
3. ಆ ಘಟ;ೆ9ಾದ 4-5 8ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ aೕ ೇb ಎಂಬುವ ೆ ಸಂಬಂpVದ
dನDದ ಒಡ ೆಗಳನುD ಅಡ ಇh ರುವ^ದನುD i@ಸುವ ವUವ6ಾರದ ಬ ೆB ;ಾನು
ಮ 01ಾಜು’ನರವರ ಬC ಚd’Vದು: ಅದ1ೆ> ಅವರು ಒ‚S ನಮ` ಕoೆPಂದ -ಾಡ ೇ1ಾJರುವ
ಕNಮಗಳನುನ -ಾ@ ಉತ4ಮ cಾಭ1ೆ> i@V1ೊಡಲು aೕ ೇbರವರ nಾTೆ ೆ ಹಣವನುD
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026HC-KAR
ನಗದು ರೂಪದ 0 ರೂ.7,80,000/-ವನುD oೆ ಾVe -ಾ@ರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಆ ಾNಹಕ ಆತನ nಾTೆ ೆ
ಹಣ ಜ-ಾ ಆJದ ತmಣ ಸ™ಳIಂದ ಪ.ಾ 9ಾJರುTಾ4;ೆ. ;ಾವ^ ಅವನನುD ಸಂಪQ’ಸಲು
ಪNಯ8DVದರೂ ಆತ ನಮ` ಸಂಪಕ’1ೆ> ಸು-ಾರು 3 ಂದ 4 ಗಂMೆಗಳ 1ಾಲ ನಮ`
ಸಂಪಕ’1ೆ> VQ>ರುವ^Iಲ0. ನಂತರ ಆತನ KೊTೆ ;ಾನು ಾಟ ಆwನ 0 qಾe -ಾ@
ಕಷ ಗಳನುD 6ಾಗೂ ಮುಂXೆ ಆಗುವ Tೊಂದ.ೆಗಳನುD ಸಹ #ವ VರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ನಂತರ ಆತ
ರೂ.7,80,000/- ಗಳನುನ ನನD -ಾ ೕಕರ nಾTೆ ೆ ಜ-ಾ -ಾ@ದ ಬ ೆB ಸಂXೇಶ ಮತು4
XಾಖcೆಯನುD ಕCVದು: ಅದನುD ನನD -ಾ ೕಕ ೆ Tೋ VXಾಗ ಅವರು ಜ-ಾ ಆJಲ0 ಎಂದು
6ೇCದ:ರು. ಈ ಹಣ1ೆ> Tಾ ೇ ಜ ಾ ಾ:ರರು ತಮ` ಸಂಬಳದ 0 ಕ@ತ ೊCಸುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ ಎಂದು
8CVದರು. ನಂತರ ;ಾನು ಅವ ೆ ೕ ೕಸ ೆ ದೂರನುD ,ೕಡುವಂTೆ 8CVದು: ಅವರು
ಇದ1ೆ> ಸ 9ಾJ ಸSಂIಸXೇ WಂXೇಟನುD 6ಾQರುTಾ4.ೆ.
4. ಇXೆcಾ0 ಆದ ನಂತರ dÆ ಅಥ ಾ ಜುcೈ 2024 ರ 0
ಮ 01ಾಜು’ನರವರು aೕ ೇbನ #qಾರದ ಬ ೆB -ಾW8 VQ>ದು: ತಮ` KೊTೆ ೌಪU ಾJ
-ಾತ;ಾಡ ೇಕು ಬ,D ಎಂದು 6ೇC ಅವರನುD iC ಬಣsದ ವ;ಾ’ 1ಾರ 0 ಕೂರುವಂTೆ
ಕ.ೆದರು. ;ಾನು ಮ’ಾUಹD ಊಟ -ಾ@ರ ಲ0, -ಾ@1ೊಂಡು ಬರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ ಎಂದು 6ೇCದರೂ
ಸಹ 1ೇಳXೇ ನನDನುD ತmಣ ೇ ಬರುವಂTೆ 8CVದ 1ಾರಣ ;ಾನು ಅವರ 1ಾ ನ 0
ಕುCತು1ೊಂ@ದು: ತುಂ ಾ ಾ9ಾ 1ೆ ಆಗು84ದ: 1ಾರಣ 1ಾ ನ 0 ,ೕ Xೆuೕ ಎಂದು
1ೇಳcಾJ ಆತ ,ೕ ಲ0, ಜೂU ಇXೆ ಎಂದು 8CVದು: ಅದ;ೆDೕ 1ೊಡುವಂTೆ 1ೇCದು: ಅದು
ಅಧ’ ಕು@ದ frooty ಜೂU ತರ ಇದು: ಅದನುD ಕು@ದ ತmಣ ೇ ನನ ೆ ಮತು4 ಬಂದಂTೆ
ಆJದು: ನಮ` ಕಂಪ,ಯ Wಂvಾಗದ 0 ಇದ:ಂತಹ cೇ ೆNೕw ಎಂಬ nಾಸJ 6ೋMೆ) ೆ
ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJದು: ಅ 0 ನನDನುD ಅವರ 6ೆಂಡ8 ಜಯಂ8 ಎಂದು ಪ ಚಯ -ಾ@ ಆ
ವUQ4ಯ ಆ’ಾರ 1ಾ€’ ಮತು4 ಮ 01ಾಜು’ನರವರ ಆ’ಾರ 1ಾಡ’ನುD ,ೕ@ ಒಂದು
1ೋ ೆಯನುD 1ಾP: V ನನDನುD ಸದ 1ೋ ೆ ೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋದರು. ಅ 0ದ:ವರು ನನD
V™8ಯ ಬ ೆB 1ೇಳcಾJ ಪN9ಾಣ -ಾ@ದ 1ಾರಣ ಸುOಾ4Jದು: #ZಾNಂ8 ಪoೆದು
6ೋಗುವ^XಾJ 8CVದ:ರು.
5. ಸದ 1ೋ ೆ ೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ ನನDನುD ನೂQದ 1ಾರಣ ನನD ತcೆ ೆ
ೆMಾ Jದು: ನನD ಇqೆzಯ #ರುದ• ಾJ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂಪಕ’ವನುD 6ೊಂIದು: ನನ ೆ ಏ;ಾಗು84ತು4
ಎಂಬುದು ೊTಾ4ಗು84ರ ಲ0. ನನ ೆ ಸಂಪ›ಣ’ ಾJ ಪN ೆ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಆತನ ಬC
1ೇಳcಾJ ತಮ ೆ ಅ;ಾ.ೋಗU ಾJದ: 1ಾರಣ ಇ 0Xೆ:ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು 6ೇCದರು. ನನ ೆ ಏ;ೋ
ಆJXೆ ಎಂಬ vಾವ;ೆ ಉಂMಾJದು: ಮರುIನ ೇ ಅವರನುD 1ೇಳcಾJ ಅವರು ನನD KೊTೆ
ಕ?ೆದಂತಹ nಾಸJ mಣಗಳನುD { ೈ)ನ 0 d8Nೕಕ V1ೊಂ@ದ:ನುD Tೋ VXಾಗ ನನ ೆ
Zಾ‹ ಆJದು:, ಅವರು ಇದನುD Oಾ-ಾLಕ KಾಲTಾಣಗಳ 0, ಎcಾ0 -ಾU;ೇಜ ಗCಗೂ ,ಮ`
ಕುಟುಂಬದವ ಗೂ 6ಾಗೂ ಮದು ೆ ವಯV ೆ ಬಂIರುವ ಮಕ>Cಗೂ ಕCಸುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ ಎಂದು
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026HC-KAR
ಾ0‹<ೕ) -ಾ@ ಕ.ೆXಾಗ ಬರುವಂTೆ 6ಾಗೂ Tಾನು 6ೇCದ ೕ8 1ೇC1ೊಂಡು
6ೋಗುವಂTೆ ೆದ 1ೆಯನುD 6ಾQರುTಾ4.ೆ.
6. ನoೆದ ಘಟ;ೆಯನುD ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ KೊTೆ ಚd’Vದ.ೆ C£ÁºÀÄvÀ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ
ಎಂಬ ಭಯIಂದ -ಾನVಕ Tೊಂದ.ೆ ಯನುD ಅನುಭ#VರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ಎರಡು 8ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ
ನನ ೆ ;ಾನು ಗ|’}9ಾJXೆ:ೕ;ೆ ಎಂಬ #qಾರ ೊTಾ4Pತು. ತmಣ ೇ ;ಾನು ಅವ ೆ ಕ.ೆ
-ಾ@ ಕ.ೆ -ಾ@ ಆಸSTೆN ೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ ಅ ಾಶ’ -ಾ@ಸುವಂTೆ 8CVXೆ:
ಅವರು ನನDನುD ನಚ’ ಆಸSTೆN ೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ ಅ 0 ಅವರು ಸWಯನುD ನನD ಗಂಡನ
6ೆಸ ನ 0 -ಾ@ರುTಾ4.ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನ ೆ ಅ;ಾ.ೋಗU ಉಂMಾJದು: ಇದನುD ಅವ ೆ
6ೇCದರೂ ಸಹ ಪ^ನಃ 2-3 ಾ ನನDನುD cೈಂJಕ ಾJ ಬಳV1ೊಂ@ರುTಾ4.ೆ. ನಂತರ ;ಾನು
1ೆಲಸವನುD iಡುವ^XಾJ 6ೇCXಾಗ ಆತ ಅವರ 6ೆಂಡ8 ಮತು4 ಅವರ 6ೆಂಡ8ಯ KೊTೆ ಾರ
ತನDನುD 1ೊcೆ -ಾಡಲು ಪNಯ8DV ಹcೆ0 -ಾ@ರುವ #qಾರ ಾJ [Nೕ.ಾಮಪ^ರ ಾ ೆಯ 0
XಾಖcಾJದು: ಆತ ಆಸSTೆNಯ 0 dQTೆ ಪoೆIರುವ^XಾJ 6ೇC ಒಂದು ಾರಗಳ 1ಾಲ
ಕಂಪ,ಯನುD ,ವ’WVರುವಂTೆ 8CVರುTಾ4.ೆ.
7. ಹತು4 Iನಗಳ ನಂತರ ಅಂದ.ೆ <ೕ 8ಂಗಳ 0 ಮ 01ಾಜು’ನರವರು ಉತ4ಮ
ಮೂ€ನ 0ದು: ,ಮ`ನುD ೕ• -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ 6ಾಗೂ nಾಸJ mಣದ #ೕ@aೕಗಳನುD
@ ೕe -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ 6ೇC ಕಂಪ,ಯ ಉXೊUೕJಗಳನುD ,ಗIತ ಅವpJಂತ ಮುಂqೆuೕ
ಕCV ಸು-ಾರು ಸಂKೆ 6.00 ಗಂMೆಯ ನಂತರ ಎcಾ0 VVh#ಗಳ ಮುಖU V ˜ನುD ಆ-
-ಾ@ರುವ^XಾJ 8CVದು: ;ಾನು ಮುQ4 Vಗುತ4Xೆ ಎಂದು ಅವ ೆ ನನDನುD ತix1ೊಳjಲು
ಅವ1ಾಶ 1ೊh ರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ಆತ ನನ ೆ Tಾ ೇ ಸ ತಃ ಖು£Pಂದ ತix1ೊಳ†jವ ೕ8
ಇರ ೇ1ೆಂದು 8CVದ:ರು. ನಂತರ ನನD ಮುಂXೆuೕ ಈ WಂXೆ d8Nೕಕ Vದ: #ೕ@aೕವನುD
@ ೕe -ಾ@ ಮ;ೆ ೆ 6ೋJ ಎಂದು 8CVರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಇXೆcಾ0 ಆದ -ಾರ;ೇ Iವಸ ನನ ೆ
ಆತ ಕ.ೆ -ಾ@ ಎcಾ0 1ೆಲಸಗಳನುD ,ವ’Wಸಲು ಆಗು84ಲ0 1ೊ;ೆಯ ಪm ;ೋhೕ ಅವp
ೕ8 20 Iನಗಳ 1ಾಲ 1ೆಲಸ -ಾ@ ಎcಾ0 ಸಂಬಳವನುD Q0ಯ -ಾ@ 6ೋಗುವಂTೆ
8CVದು: ನಂತರ ;ಾನು 12-06-2025 ರ 0 ಎcಾ0 1ೆಲಸವನುD ಮುJV ಸದ ಕಂಪ,Pಂದ
6ೊರಬಂIರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ನಂತರ ;ಾನು <MೊNೕ Fಂಗ) 1ೋವQಂ’R ನ 0 1ೆಲಸ -ಾಡಲು
ಾNರಂ|Vದು: ಕಂಪ,ಯನುD ಹುಡುಕು84Xಾ:ಗ ಐV ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 1ೆಲಸ -ಾಡು84Xೆ:ೕ;ೆ. I.
28-06-2025 ರಂದು ಮ 01ಾಜು’ನರವರು ಈ ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 1ೆಲಸ -ಾಡು84ರುವ^ದನುD
8Cದು ಸWV1ೊಳjcಾಗXೇ ಅವರ 6ೆಂಡ89ಾದ ಜಯಂ8ರವರ { ೈ)ನ ಾಟ ಆw
,ಂದ ನಮ` ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಎಲ0 ಗೂ ಅ[0ೕಲ #ೕ@aೕಗಳನುD ಕCVರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಇದ ಂದ ನನD
ಕುಟುಂಬದವ.ೆcಾ0 ನನDನುD ೈದು, ನನD ಮಕ>ಳ† ನನDನುD ೇಡ ಎಂದು 6ೇC ಒಬxಂh -ಾ@
6ೋJದು: ;ಾನು ಈಗ ಒಬxಂh9ಾJರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ;ಾನು 9ಾವ^ದ1ೆ> ಅಂL ಬದುಕು84Xೆ:;ೋ
ಅXೇ 6ೋದ ನಂತರ Lೕವನ ೇಡ ಎಂದು 8Cದು ಮತು4 ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ಈ ೕ8 ಆಗ ಾರದು
ಎಂಬ ಉXೆ:ೕಶIಂದ ಬಸ ೇಶ ರ ನಗರ ಾ ೆಯ 0 I.:28.06.2025 1ೆ> 6ೋJ ನoೆದ
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
ಘಟ;ೆಯನುD 8CVದು: , ೕmಕರು ಇರದ 1ಾರಣ I;ಾಂಕ 30-06-2025251ೆ> ನನD ದೂರನುD
ೕ ೕಸರು V ೕಕ VರುTಾ4.ೆ. ನಂತರದ ಕNಮಗಳನುD ೕ ೕಸರು ಜರುJVರುTಾ4.ೆ ಎಂದು
8Cದು1ೊಂ@ರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನ ೆ ೇ.ೆ 6ೆಣುs ಮಕ>Cಗೂ {ೕಸ -ಾ@ರುವ #qಾರಗಳ†
ೊTಾ4Jರುತ4Xೆ. ”
Pursuant to the complaint, the police embarked upon
investigation and, upon completion thereof, laid the
charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court. The
summary of the charge sheet, particularly as reflected in
Column No. 17, substantially mirrors the allegations in
the complaint and details the sequence of events, the
alleged conduct of accused No. 1, and the consequential
role attributed to accused No. 2. The investigation, at
least prima facie, sought to corroborate the accusation
that the complainant was subjected to sustained
exploitation, intimidation, and blackmail, culminating in
the circulation of obscene and compromising material to
her relatives and family members.
9. Interposed between the lodging of the complaint
and the filing of the charge sheet is the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 164(5) of the CrPC. The
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
said statement is elaborate, detailed, and leaves little
room for ambiguity as to the complainant’s version of
events. It narrates, with painful specificity, the alleged
acts of manipulation, coercion, sexual exploitation,
blackmail, and the eventual dissemination of private
material that forms the substratum of the prosecution
case. The statement also sheds light on the emotional,
psychological, and social devastation allegedly suffered
by the victim.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that notwithstanding the breadth of
allegations, no material worth the name has surfaced against
accused No. 2, the present petitioner. It is further contended
that even the mobile phone seized and subjected to forensic
examination did not reveal the presence of any photographs,
videos, or digital material capable of establishing transmission
by the petitioner. On that foundation, the learned counsel
would submit that continuation of criminal proceedings against
the petitioner would amount to abuse of process and, therefore,
warrants interdiction. The submission, though noted, deserves
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
only to be rejected. A careful perusal of the complaint, the
summary of the charge sheet, the statement of the
victim, and the statement recorded before the learned
Magistrate unmistakably discloses allegations attributing
an active role to the petitioner, at the very least, in the
transmission of the compromising material to the
complainant’s husband and relatives.
11. The other offences are the ones punishable under
Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act. They read as follows:
“67. Punishment for publishing or transmitting
obscene material in electronic form.–Whoever publishes
or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the
electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to
the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to
deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to
all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter
contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first
conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years and with fine which may
extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or
subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to five years and
also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
67-A. Punishment for publishing or transmitting
of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in
electronic form.–Whoever publishes or transmits or causes
to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any
material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall
be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to five years and
with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026HC-KAR
event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh
rupees.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The intention of the legislature in introducing Section 67 of the
IT Act, being publishing or transmitting obscene material in
electronic form, cannot be restricted by construing the term
‘sexually explicit’ to only showing an activity of being indulging
in sex. In any case, when the intention of the legislature
was to do away exploitation of women or children or any
person in electronic form by publishing or transmitting
any obscene material, the term ‘sexually explicit’, cannot
be said to be not covering activity in respect of which the
accusations are made. Therefore, the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that it would not attract
Section 67A of the IT Act would become a matter of trial and
not the crime being obliterated even for Section 67A, in the
teeth of seriously disputed questions of fact.
12. The controversy at hand is enveloped in
seriously disputed questions of fact – questions that
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
cannot be conveniently resolved in proceedings invoking
inherent jurisdiction. Such disputed factual matrices can
be unravelled only upon appreciation of evidence in a
full-fledged trial, where witnesses are examined, cross-
examined, and the evidentiary record tested through the
crucible of judicial scrutiny. To embark upon such an
exercise at this stage would amount to transgressing the well-
settled limits of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Exercise of inherent jurisdiction, in the teeth of such disputed
facts, would run directly contrary to the law declared by the
Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH1 wherein it is held as follows:
“9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted
that in the present case the High Court in exercise
of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the
criminal proceedings for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is
required to be noted that when the High Court in
exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed
the criminal proceedings, by the time the
investigating officer after recording the statement
of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and
collecting the evidence from the incident place and
after taking statement of the independent
witnesses and even statement of the accused
persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the
learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections
147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the1
(2021) 9 SCC 35
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From
the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam
Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed
by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court
took into consideration the material collected during the
investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded.
If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the
stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the
FIR/complaint only are required to be considered
and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not
is required to be considered. However, thereafter
when the statements are recorded, evidence is
collected and the charge-sheet is filed after
conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter
stands on different footing and the Court is required
to consider the material/evidence collected during
the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed
and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High
Court is not required to go into the merits of the
allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if
the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction
and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court
in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai
Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1
SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual
contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the
High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor
can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is
further observed and held that that question is required to
be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and
prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such
stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence
nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of
FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it
is more so, when the material relied on is disputed.
It is further observed that in such a situation, it
becomes the job of the investigating authority at
such stage to probe and then of the court to
examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed
along with such material as to how far and to what
extent reliance can be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the
decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of
powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings
is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed
that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC
though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and with caution, only when such exercise is
justified by tests specifically laid down in the
section itself. It is further observed that
appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the
stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of
powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been
expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind
Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94]
, Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19
SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and
in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 :
(2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we
are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and
consider the fact that there are very serious triable
issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and
considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost
sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the
course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to
appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a
joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and
Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta
Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was
transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required
to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated
27-10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25
lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to
Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the
possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to
be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have
been paid and there is a reference to transfer of
possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been
paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial,
because the accused are relying upon the said document
and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint
notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to
be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs
25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is
reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is
a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable
issues/allegations which are required to be considered at
the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice
and/or consider the material collected during the
investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High
Court that no case is made out for the offence under
Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the
High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised
affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however
as per the High Court the same is required to be
considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court
has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to
notice that another FIR has been lodged against the
accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471
IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised
affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession
was handed over to them. However, when the payment of
Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is
seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5
cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and
according to the accused they were handed over the
possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to
be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to
opine that no case is made out for the offence under
Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is
to be considered during trial. It is also required to be
noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and
thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the
accused and that too for permanent injunction only.
Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects
are required to be considered at the time of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly
erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by
entering into the merits of the allegations as if the
High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction
and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has
exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section
482 CrPC.
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that
original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation
is made on the premise that the complainant has not
placed on record the power of attorney along with the
counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is
specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed
the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating
officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded
the statement of the complainant, accused and the
independent witnesses, thereafter whether the
complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to
be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam
Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed
by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and
set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now,
the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in
accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made
clear that the observations made by this Court in the
present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to
the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial
court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its
own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid
and without being influenced by any of the observations
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is
accordingly allowed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of
MUSKAN v. ISHAAN KHAN (SATANIYA)2 has held as
follows:
".... .... ....
C. ANALYSIS
17. The main issue that arises for our analysis is
whether the High Court was right in quashing the criminal
proceedings against the private respondents primarily on
the ground that the earlier complaints did not mention the
two specific incidents dated 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022,
which were later on added in the FIR and whether the
same would not amount to conducting a ‘mini trial’
which is clearly prohibited under the scheme of
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.
18. At the outset it will be appropriate to advert to
the observations made by the High Court in paragraphs 9
and 10 of the impugned order:
“9. It is undisputed that prior to filing FIR
(Annexure P/5), a written complaint dated
22.01.2023 (Annexure P/3) was filed before Mahila
Police Station, Ratlam, District Ratlam (MP) for the
alleged harassment meted out to respondent No. 2
from her husband and in-laws (applicants before
this Court). It is also not in dispute that both the
parties i.e. applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2,
on their counter allegations, were advised by Police
Mahila Thana, Ratlam to take recourse of law, but
no action was taken on the above 3 MCRC-10695-2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026HC-KAR
2024 complaint by respondent No. 2. In such a
situation, if respondent No. 2 was aggrieved of
advice dated 23.01.2023 given by Mahila Police
Station, Ratlam, she might have approached the
Superintendent of Police for inaction on the part of
the concerned Police Station on her complaint, but
this has not been done.
10. It is also pertinent to note that in the
(sic) above written complaint, there has not been a
whisper of the events of harassment on 22.07.2021
and 27.11.2022, as narrated in the FIR (Annexure
P/5). It manifests that the alleged incidents of
harassment meted out to the complainant allegedly
took place on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 are
afterthought. The contentions raised on behalf of
the applicants that FIR (Annexure P/5) is a
counterblast to notice (Annexure P/1) given by
applicant No. 1 to respondent No. 2 also finds
support from the above.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. From a bare perusal of the above mentioned
paragraphs it can be seen that one of the important factors
that weighed in while allowing the quashing application of
the private respondents was that in the earlier complaints
filed by the appellant, there was no mention of the events
of harassment that happened on 22.07.2021 and
27.11.2022, which were later on added in the FIR dated
28.01.2024. Hence, we extract the relevant portion of the
complaints dated 22.01.2023 and 23.01.2023 which would
clearly indicate prime facie allegations of harassment and
demand of dowry against the private respondents:
“22.01.2023
…That immediately after the Nikah, the
respondents namely Ishan, father-in-law Ishaq
Khan, mother-in-law Irfana Bi, sister-in law
(Nanad) Ayesha, Nandoi Shayid Khan, Jeth
Hemuddin son of Akbar Khan resident of Ujjain
started raising demand of dowry from me. They are
constantly causing physical and mental harassment
for the last two years. A demand of dowry is being
raised every day since the day of my marriage. My
father gave a Pulsar Bike but I was asked to bring a
car. On the occasion of my sister-in-law’s wedding,
– 28 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
they asked me to ask my father to give an A.C to
their daughter Ayesha in the dowry. My mother-in-
law did not allow my husband to come to the
hospital at the time of my delivery. At the time of
my ‘God-Bharai’, she demanded clothes and my
mother-in-law puts restrictions on my eating food
and having breakfast. She asks me to eat the same
vegetable three times a day and asks me not to eat
breakfast, she lets me drink tea once a day, she
has installed cameras in my kitchen. My mother-in-
law locks me in the house from outside. She does
not allow me to talk to my husband. My husband
would come to me at 11 o’clock in the night and
would quarrel with me and assault me. My sister-
in-law and brother-in-law would come to Ghosla
almost every day and would scare me and threaten
to kill me. They do not give me my mobile phone,
they do not let my family members come to Ghosla
and talk to me even on the phone. It is the daily
routine of my father-in-law to hurl abuses morning
and evening.”
*****
23.01.2023
…. Since after my marriage, I have been
tortured and threatened. Ask your father to give a
car and a demand was raised for an A.C. in my
sister-in-law’s marriage. When the demand could
not be fulfilled by my father, I am being made to
eat same vegetable for three days and they do not
allow me to take my breakfast and I am given tea
only once in a day.
My mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-
law and father-in-law come together to my room
and hurl abuses and threaten me. My father-in-law
hurls abuses in obscene language and my mother-
in-law makes me work the entire day and does not
let me eat anything. My sister-in-law and brother-
in-law everyday tell my mother-in-law to send him
away over the phone. Many times they confine me
in the room and lock the same from outside and I
am not allowed to go out and I am not even
allowed to open the window of the house. They
have confined me as hostage in the house for many
days. They do not let me talk to my family on
phone and do not even let my family members
– 29 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
meet me. My husband is also involved in all this.
He never gives me even 2 rupees for expenses.
They do not even allow me to visit my relatives. As
such, being troubled by all this, I came to my
parents’ house.
….”
It is also apposite that we extract the relevant
portions of the FIR so as to better understand the
allegations against the private respondents, particularly the
two specific incidents that happened on 22.07.2021 and
27.11.2022. The relevant extract reads thus:
“…..I kept tolerating their taunts in order to
save my marital life. But on 22.07.2021, my
husband Ishan Khan, mother-in-law Irfana Bee,
father-in-law Ishaq Khan, sister-in law Aaysha Bee
and brother-in-law (Nandoi) Syed Khan hurled
abuses to me. My brother-in-law (Nandoi) Syed
Khan slapped me also and asked me to bring dowry
from your father’s house. Despite all this, I kept
tolerating their torture. But on 27.11.2022, my
husband Ishan Khan told me that I have passed
the examination of M.B.B.S. and now I have to
pursue M.C.I. Examination, as such, now if you will
bring an amount of Rs. fifty lacs from your father,
only then, I will keep you with me and say this, he
ousted me and my son Iwaan Khan from the house
while holding our hand. Thereafter, I came to my
father Zahid Khan’s house at Alot and narrated the
entire incident to my father and mother Parveen
Bee. Since then, I am residing at Alot alongwith my
father. My father made several attempts to make
my husband and in-laws understand but these
people are adamant for their demand of dowry of a
sum of Rs. fifty lacs that unless and until, they are
given a dowry of Rs. fifty lacs, they will not take
me with them. Today, I have come to make a
report in the police station alongwith my father
Zahid Khan. I lodge the report, action may be
taken.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. The classic exposition on law under Section 482
of the CrP.C is found in Bhajan Lal (supra) wherein this
– 30 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
Court elaborated upon the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C. It was held thus:
“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 have given 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
channelized 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 non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
– 31 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
(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.”
21. In Daxaben v. State of Gujarat9, a two-Judge
Bench held as follows:
“26. Even though, the inherent power of the
High Court under Section 482 CrPC, to interfere
with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has
to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional
cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to
be exercised for the asking.
27. In Monica Kumar v. State of U.P.
[(2008) 8 SCC 781 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 649], this
Court held that inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and with caution and only when such exercise is
justified by the tests specifically laid down in the
section itself.
28. In exceptional cases, to prevent abuse
of the process of the Court, the High Court might in
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482
quash criminal proceedings. However, interference
would only be justified when the complaint did not
disclose any offence, or was patently frivolous,
vexatious or oppressive, as held by this Court in
– 32 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026HC-KAR
Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar [1990 Supp
SCC 686 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 142 : AIR 1990 SC 494].
*****
36. Offence under Section 306 IPC of
abetment to commit suicide is a grave, non-
compoundable offence. Of course, the inherent
power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is
wide and can even be exercised to quash criminal
proceedings relating to non-compoundable
offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of the process of court. Where the victim and
offender have compromised disputes essentially
civil and personal in nature, the High Court can
exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash
the criminal proceedings. In what cases power to
quash an FIR or a criminal complaint or criminal
proceedings upon compromise can be exercised,
would depend on the facts and circumstances of
the case.”
22.On the aspect of the powers of the Courts
under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., it is settled that at
the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to
conduct a mini trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. with respect to quashing is
somewhat limited as the Court has to only consider
whether any sufficient material is available to
proceed against the accused or not. If sufficient
material is available, the power under Section 482
should not be exercised.
23. This Court in the case of State of Odisha v.
Pratima Mohanty10 held that:
“8.2.It is trite that the power of
quashing should be exercised sparingly and
with circumspection and in rare cases. As per
the settled proposition of law while examining
an FIR/complaint quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon any
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of
allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than any ordinary rule.
Normally the criminal proceedings should not
be quashed in exercise of powers under
– 33 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026HC-KAR
Section 482 CrPC when after a thorough
investigation the charge-sheet has been filed.
At the stage of discharge and/or considering
the application under Section 482 CrPC the
courts are not required to go into the merits
of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as
if conducting the mini-trial. As held by this
Court the powers under Section 482 CrPC are
very wide, but conferment of wide power
requires the court to be more cautious. It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty on
the Court.”
24. Further in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Aryan Singh11, this Court held that at
the stage of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., the High
Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.
“6. From the impugned common
judgment and order [Aryan Singh v. CBI, 2022
SCC OnLine P&H 4158] passed by the High
Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt
with the proceedings before it, as if, the High
Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the
High Court was considering the applications
against the judgment and order passed by the
learned trial court on conclusion of trial. As
per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage
of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers
under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not
required to conduct the mini trial. The High
Court in the common impugned judgment and
order has observed that the charges against
the accused are not proved. This is not the
stage where the prosecution/investigating
agency is/are required to prove the charges.
The charges are required to be proved during
the trial on the basis of the evidence led by
the prosecution/investigating agency.”
(emphasis supplied)
25. This Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private
Limited (supra) gave following directions to the Courts
exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.:
“Conclusions
– 34 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026HC-KAR
33. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, our final conclusions on the
principal/core issue, whether the High Court would
be justified in passing an interim order of stay of
investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be
adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing
petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what
circumstances and whether the High Court would
be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the
accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted”
during the investigation or till the final
report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173
CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of/not
entertaining/not quashing the criminal
proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are
as under:
33.1 ….
33.2. Courts would not thwart any
investigation into the cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report that the
Court will not permit an investigation to go on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has
been observed, in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to
be confused with the formation in the context of
death penalty).
33.5.While examining an
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought,
the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise
of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
33.6 ….
33.7.Quashing of a complaint/FIR
should be an exception rather than an
ordinary rule.
– 35 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
33.8 to 33.11 ….
33.12.The first information report is not
an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts
and details relating to the offence reported.
Therefore, when the investigation by the
police is in progress, the court should not go
into the merits of the allegations in the FIR.
Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts
that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no
substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file
an appropriate report/summary before the
learned Magistrate which may be considered
by the learned Magistrate in accordance with
the known procedure.
33.13 and 33.14 …..
33.15.When a prayer for quashing the
FIR is made by the alleged accused and the
court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 CrPC, only has to consider
whether the allegations in the FIR disclose
commission of a cognizable offence or not.The
court is not required to consider on merits whether
or not the merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR.”
(emphasis supplied)
26. Further, this Court in the case of State of
Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani12 held that:
“13. There can be no dispute over the
proposition that inherent power in a matter of
quashment of FIR has to be exercised
sparingly and with caution and when and only
when such exercise is justified by the test
specifically laid down in the provision itself.
There is no denial of the fact that the power
– 36 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026HC-KAR
under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it
needs no special emphasis to state that
conferment of wide power requires the Court
to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and
more diligent duty on the Court.
14. In this regard, it would be seemly to
reproduce a passage from Kurukshetra University
[Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana,
(1977) 4 SCC 451 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 613] wherein
Chandrachud, J. (as his Lordship then was) opined
thus : (SCC p. 451, para 2)“2. It surprises us in the extreme that the
High Court thought that in the exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, it could quash a first
information report. The police had not even
commenced investigation into the complaint filed
by the Warden of the University and no proceeding
at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the
FIR. It ought to be realised that inherent powers do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High
Court to act according to whim or caprice. That
statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.””
(emphasis supplied)
27.We are of the view that the High Court has
erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with
regard to credibility or otherwise of the allegations in
the complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing
an FIR, it must be shown that there exists no prime
facie case against the accused persons. In the
present case, from the conjoint reading of the
complaints and the FIR, it can be seen that prime
facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry
are made out, despite that the High Court quashed
the FIR against the private respondents primarily on
the ground that the earlier two complaints that were
filed by the appellant did not mention the specific
instances that happened on 22.07.2021 and
27.11.2022 and the same were later on mentioned in
the FIR only as an afterthought and was a
counterblast to the legal notice sent by respondent
no. 1/husband to the appellant as she was not
– 37 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
coming back to her matrimonial home. This approach
adopted by the High Court, in our considered opinion,
amounts to conducting a mini trial.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned that quashing of
criminal proceedings is an exception and not the rule. Inherent
jurisdiction, though wide in amplitude, is to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of cases
where continuation of proceedings would amount to manifest
injustice. Where serious triable issues arise and material
collected during investigation prima facie supports the
prosecution case, judicial interference at the threshold would be
wholly impermissible.
14. In the light of the law enunciated by the Apex Court
in KAPTAN SINGH and MUSKAN supra and bearing in mind
the factual narrative obtaining in the case at hand, this Court
finds no ground to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to
interdict the prosecution. The petition, therefore, merits
dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
– 38 –
NC: 2026:KHC:27535
CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026
HC-KAR
It is made abundantly clear that the observations
rendered in the course of this order are confined solely to
adjudication of the petitioner’s prayer under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. and shall neither bind nor influence the proceedings
before the concerned trial Court, which shall decide the matter
independently, uninfluenced by any observations made herein,
strictly on the basis of evidence that may unfold during trial.
Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2026 also stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 37
