Allegations Of Continuous Sexual Harassment And Intimidation Require Trial; Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed On Plea Of Previous Enmity: Karnataka High Court

"If really there is a vengeance against the petitioners for personal grudge, there cannot be any prosecution. But having considered the statement of witnesses not only complainants but also other victims who are also the witnesses to the incident and when there is a continuity of harassment against women, the Court has to take note of the same." Karnataka High Court, in a ruling dated October 9, 2026, held that criminal proceedings involving specific allegations of sexual harassment, stalking, and criminal intimidation cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC merely on the ground of pre-existing enmity between neighbors.

A single judge bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh emphasized that when a charge sheet discloses a prima facie case with supporting witness statements, the veracity of such allegations—including the claim of malicious prosecution—must be determined through a full-fledged trial rather than at the stage of quashing.

The petitioners, a father and son, sought the quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 20704/2021, registered for offences under Sections 504, 506, 509, 354A, and 34 of the IPC. The complaint, filed by three women residents of a gated community, alleged a pattern of continuous sexual harassment, the use of sexually explicit slurs, and the non-consensual video recording of women and children. The petitioners argued that the complaint was an abuse of process fueled by a long-standing history of mutual litigation and personal vengeance between the parties.

The primary question before the court was whether proceedings could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the accused alleges that the complaint is a product of mala fide intent and historical enmity. The court was also called upon to determine whether the absence of recovered digital devices or specific technical evidence at the investigation stage warrants the dismissal of charges involving sexual harassment and criminal intimidation.

Nature of Allegations Precludes Summary Quashing

The court observed that the complaint detailed specific incidents, including the use of lewd language and provocative gestures toward women and minors. While the petitioners contended that the lack of seized devices and the presence of prior litigation indicated an "oblique motive," the court noted that the police had collected witness statements that corroborated the allegations. The judge emphasized that the presence of enmity does not automatically invalidate a criminal complaint if the underlying allegations are substantial.

Court Examines Scope of Section 482 CrPC

The bench reiterated the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, clarifying that Section 482 powers are to be used sparingly. The court noted that while personal vengeance can be a ground for quashing if a case is "manifestly attended with mala fide," it cannot be invoked when serious allegations affecting the safety and modesty of women are supported by witness testimony. The court underscored that in matters of continuous harassment, the evidentiary value of witness statements is a matter for the trial court to assess.

"Whether the present complaint is filed with an oblique motive and with an intention to harass the petitioners or not is a matter of trial."

Rejection of Technical Defenses

The petitioners argued that the specific ingredients for Section 354A of the IPC were not made out as no sexual favors were demanded. The court, however, maintained that the determination of whether the conduct falls squarely under Section 354A or merely attracts Sections 509 and 506 of the IPC is a nuanced factual issue. Such determinations, the court held, are premature at the quashing stage and must be resolved during the trial proceedings where witnesses can be cross-examined.

"When such serious allegations are made particularly, an abuse made and words which have been stated in the complaint attracts the offences under Section 354A of IPC along with other offences."

Focus on Victim and Witness Rights

Reflecting on the constitutional mandate under Article 21, the court highlighted that the right to a fair investigation and protection from harassment extends to the victims. The bench noted that witnesses who are not part of the primary complainant group had also provided statements supporting the allegations of persistent stalking and intimidation. Consequently, the court found no merit in interfering with the trial process, noting that the judicial system must remain cautious and circumspect when dealing with serious offences against women and children.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling that the case must proceed to trial. The court directed that the trial court should proceed with the merits of the evidence presented by the prosecution, leaving the question of mala fide intent to be decided upon a full appreciation of evidence.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026