The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation, holding that merely looking at a woman in an inappropriate manner does not amount to demanding sexual favours under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order in Hafeez Khasim v. State of Karnataka, after finding that the complainant had withdrawn key allegations during the police investigation, leaving behind an accusation that the man had looked at her inappropriately.
“The allegation of the petitioner having looked at respondent No.2 in an inappropriate manner cannot, by itself, be treated as a demand or request for sexual favours within the meaning of Section 75(1)(ii) of the BNS,” the Court observed.
The case originated from a complaint filed after the woman visited the accused’s residence to resolve a financial dispute. Her initial complaint alleged that the man had sought sexual favours in return for money and other benefits. She also claimed that he had threatened to cause her physical harm if she failed to repay the amount.
However, during the investigation, the complainant gave a subsequent statement in which she disowned these allegations. Her revised version was limited to the claim that the accused had looked at her inappropriately.
Despite the change in the complainant’s account, the police proceeded to file a chargesheet invoking Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2) of the BNS, dealing with demands for sexual favours and criminal intimidation, respectively.
The accused approached the High Court, seeking to have the criminal proceedings set aside.
Allowing the petition on November 2, the Court noted that the complainant’s later statement directly contradicted the essential ingredients of the offences for which the chargesheet had been filed.
“Though the original complaint contains an allegation which, if established, would attract the provision, the subsequent statement of the very complainant, recorded during investigation, specifically negates the essential ingredient of the offence for which the charge-sheet has been filed,” the Court said.
The Court also took note of the fact that the complainant had withdrawn her allegation of criminal intimidation.
It clarified that inconsistencies between an initial complaint and a subsequent statement do not automatically justify quashing criminal proceedings in every case. However, the circumstances before it were different.
With the complainant having disowned the substantive allegations and no other material emerging during the investigation to support the charges, the Court found no basis to allow the proceedings to continue.
“In the absence of any other material disclosed during investigation to substantiate the alleged demand for sexual favours or the alleged criminal intimidation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2) of the BNS would serve no useful purpose,” it concluded.
The criminal proceedings against the accused were accordingly quashed.