- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 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: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, 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; R Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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: “ರವೆ,  ೕ ಇ ೆಕ ಬಸೇಶರ 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 ಈೆB ಸು-ಾರು 3 8ಂಗC,ಂದ ;ಾನು, ನನD ಮಕ>?ಾದ ಭೂF1ಾ ಎಂ ಮತು4 <ೕಘ;ಾ ರವರುಗ?ೆ ಂIೆ ಾಸಾJದು:1ೊಂಡು, .ಾKಾLನಗರದ <MೊNೕ Oೇಷ ಬCPರುವ <MೊNೕ Fಂಗ) 1ೋ ವQಂ'R OೆSೕನ 0 ಪNTೆUೕಕಾJ Vೕ,ಯ -ಾU;ೇಜ ಆJ ಕತ'ವU ,ವ'Wಸು84ರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ;ಾನು ಈ WಂXೆ 2023;ೇ ಇಸ#Pಂದ 2025;ೇ ಜೂ 8ಂಗಳ 12;ೇ TಾೕQನವ.ೆ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 #ZೇಷಾJ ನನD;ೊDಂIೆ ಅಸಭUಾJ ವ8'ಸು84ದ:ರು. ;ಾನು ಈ ಬೆB ಅವರನುD ಪN[DV, ಪN8.ೋಧ ವUಕ4ಪ@VXಾಗ ತನD ಬC ೇ1ಾದಷು ಹಣ#ರುವ^XಾJ, ಆದ.ೆ ತನೆ ತನD ಪ8DPಂದ ಸುಖ#ಲ0 ತನೆ -ಾನVಕಾJ Qರುಕುಳಾಗು84Xೆ ತನD ಪ8D ಸು-ಾರು 5 ವಷ'ಗCಂದ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 ೇ.ೆಯವ.ೊಂIೆ ಸಂಪಕ' 6ೊಂIದು:, ನನೆ ;ೆಮ`I 6ಾ?ಾJXೆ. ,ೕನು ಸಲS ಅಡ* -ಾqÉÆÌà ,ನೆ ಸಂಬಳ KಾV4 -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ ನನೆ ಆFೕಷaಡು*84ದ:ರು. ಇXಾದ ಸು-ಾರು 9 8ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ನಮ` ಹ?ೆಯ ಾNಹಕ aೕೇb ಎಂಬುವವರು ನನೆ ಕ.ೆ -ಾ@ Tಾನು ಈಾಗcೇ ತನD d;ಾDಭರಣಗಳನುD 1ೆಂೇಯ ಮುತೂ4e fೈ;ಾ ನ 0 ಅಡ-ಾನ#hರುವ^XಾJ, ಆ d;ಾDಭರಣಗಳನುD ,ೕವ^ i@V1ೊಂಡು ಖೕI -ಾ@1ೊCj, ಆ d;ಾDಭರಣಗCೆ ತಗುಲುವ ಉCದ ಹಣವನುD ನನೆ 1ೊ@ ಎಂದು 1ೋ1ೊಂಡನು. ಆಗ ;ಾನು ಸಹ ನಮ` -ಾ ೕಕ.ೊಂIೆ ಚd'V, aೕೇb ಎಂಬುವವರ ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉUÉ 7 ಲmದ 80 Oಾ#ರ ಹಣವನುD ಆತನ nಾTೆೆ 6ಾQ, ಅಡ-ಾನ#hರುವ ಹಣವನುD ©r¹PÉÆAqÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §¤ß ಎಂದು ಆತ,ೆ 8CVXೆನು. aೕೇb ಹಣ ಪoೆzÀ £ÀAತರ ನನD ಕ.ೆೆ ಸSಂpVXೇ ತcೆಮ.ೆV1ೊಂಡರು. ಈ #qಾರಾJ ನಮ` ೋ)* ಕಂಪ,ಯ -ಾ ೕಕ.ಾದ ಮ 01ಾಜು' ರವರು ;ಾ;ೇ ಅದ1ೆ> 1ಾರಣೆಂದು, aೕೇbರವರು ,ೕ@ದ ಅಷು ಹಣವನುD ,ೕ;ೇ ಭV1ೊಡೇ1ೆಂದು ಆಾಗ ನನೆ -ಾನVಕಾJ WಂOೆ ,ೕಡು84ದ:ರು. WೕJರುವ 0 ಮ 01ಾಜು' ಯವರು 2024;ೇ ಜುcೈ 8ಂಗಳ ಒಂದು Iನ ನನDನುD aೕೇb ರವೆ ,ೕ@ರುವ ಹಣದ #qಾರಾJ -ಾತ;ಾಡೇಕು ಬ,D ಎಂದು ನನDನುD ತಮ` iC ಬಣsದ ವ;ಾ' 1ಾನ 0 ಕೂV1ೊಂಡು .ಾKಾLನಗರ ಏ9ಾ ಸುTಾ4@V1ೊಂಡು -ಾತ;ಾಡುTಾ4 ನನೆ ಕು@ಯಲು ಜೂU ,ೕ@ದು:, ;ಾನು ಅದನುD ಕು@ಯು84ದ:ಂTೆuೕ ನನೆ ಸಲS ,Xೆ: ಬಂದ ೕ8ಯ 0 vಾಷಾPತು. ಆ ನಂತರ ನನDನುD ಮ 01ಾಜು' ಯವರು ೕ ೆNೕw ಎಂಬ nಾಸJೕ 6ೋMೇ)ೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ, 6ೋMೇ)ನ VಬxಂpಗCೆ ನನDನುD ಆತನ ಪ8D ಜಯಂ8 ಎಂದು ಪಚPV, ರೂಂyಂದನುD ಪoೆದು ನನDನುD ರೂಂೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ ನನD ಇqೆzಯ #ರುದ:ಾJ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂvೋಗವನುD -ಾ@ರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಆನಂತರ ಮ 01ಾಜು' ರವರು ನನೆ ;ಾನು ,;ೊDಂIೆ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂvೋಗ -ಾ@ರುವಂತಹ ಸ,DೇಶವನುD ನನD {ೈ)ನ 0 #@aೕ -ಾ@1ೊಂ@Xೆ:ೕ;ೆ. ,ೕನು ;ಾನು 9ಾಾಗ ಕ.ೆದರೂ ನ;ೊDಂIೆ ಬರೇಕು, ಸುಖ 1ೊಡೇಕು ಇಲ0ಾದ.ೆ ,ನD #@aೕವನುD Oಾ-ಾLಕ KಾಲTಾಣದ 0 ಹiಡುವ^XಾJ ನನೆ ೆದ1ೆ 6ಾQರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಇXಾದ ಸು-ಾರು 02 8ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ;ಾನು ಗ|'}9ಾJದು:, ಈ #qಾರವನುD ;ಾನು ಮ 01ಾಜು' ಯವೆ 8CVದು:, ಆತನು ನನDನುD ನಮ` ಕಂಪ,ಯ ಬCPದ: ನಚ' ಆಸSTೆNೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ ಅ 0ನ ಆಸSTೆNಯ ೈದUೆ Tಾನು ಈ1ೆಯ ಪ8uಂದು 8CV, ತನD ಸWಯನುD 6ಾQ ನನೆ ಅಾಷ' -ಾ@VರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಆನಂತರ ನನೆ ಆ.ೋಗUದ 0 ಏರುಾ.ಾಗು84ದ: 1ಾರಣ ;ಾನು ಸದ ೋ)* ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0uೕ 1ೆಲಸ ಮುಂದುವ.ೆಸುವ^ದು ಸಯಲ0 ಎಂದು aೕdV. ಮ 01ಾಜು' ಯವರ ಬC TೆರC ;ಾನು Oೈ -ಾಡುವ ಬೆB 8CVXೆ ಆಗ ಆತನು ,ೕನು ನಮ` ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 1ೆಲಸ iಟ.ೆ ;ಾವ^ ನಮ` ಕಂಪ,ಯ;ೆDೕ ಮುಚ•ೇ1ಾಗುತ4Xೆ ಅಲ0Xೇ ನನD ಪ8DaಂIೆ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 ಸಂಬಂಧ#ಟು1ೊಂ@ರುವ ಪ^ರುಷ ತನD ಸಹಚರ.ೊಂIೆ Oೇ1ೊಂಡು ನನೆ ಹcೆ0 -ಾ@, 1ೊcೆೆ ಪNಯ8DVದು: ಈ ಬೆB ಈಾಗcೇ [Nೕ.ಾಂಪ^ರ  ೕ ಾೆಯ 0 {.ಸಂ.44/2025 ೕTಾU 1ೇಸು XಾಖcಾJರುವ^XಾJ, ತನೆ #ಪೕತ -ಾ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 ,;ೊDಂIೆ ಮುಕ4ಾJ ತನD 6ೆಂಡ8ಯ ಎಲ0 #qಾರಗಳನುD -ಾತ;ಾಡೇಕು. ,ೕ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;ೊDಂIೆ ಸಂTೋಷIಂದ ಸಹಕVದ.ೆ ,ನDನುD ಈ Iನ  ೕ• -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ 8CV, ನ;ೊDಂIೆ 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 Iನೆಂದು 8CVI:ೕ.ಾ ;ಾ;ೇ1ೆ ಬರೇಕು ಎಂದು 1ೇCXೆ ಆಗ ಆತನು ಅh0ೕ 20 Iನಾದರೂ -ಾಡು, ಇನುD ಮುಂXೆ ;ಾನು ,ನೆ Tೊಂದ.ೆ ,ೕಡುವ^Iಲ0ೆಂದು ಭರವOೆ ,ೕ@ದು:, ಅದರಂTೆ ;ಾನು 2025;ೇ ಜೂ 8ಂಗಳ 12;ೇ Tಾೕ„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 OೆSೕನ 0 1ೆಲಸ1ೆ> Oೇ1ೊಂ@ರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ;ಾನು 6ೊಸXಾJ 1ೆಲಸ1ೆ> Oೇ1ೊಂ@ರುವ^ದನುD ಸWಸcಾಗXೇ ಮ 01ಾಜು' 6ಾಗೂ ಆತನ ಪ8D ಜಯಂ8ಯವರು ಾ0 -ಾ@ ¢£ÁAPÀ:28/06/2025gÀAzÀÄ ;ಾನು ಮ 01ಾಜು' ರವ.ೊಂIೆ ಇರುವಂತಹ ಅ[0ೕಲ #@aೕಗಳನುD ಜಯಂ8 ರವರು ತನD {ೈ),ಂದ ಾMಾw ಮೂಲಕ ನನD vಾವನವ.ಾದ [Nೕ #;ೋ… ರವರ {ೈ) ನಂ. 9916702414 ೆ ಕಳ†VರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಆಾJ ನನD ಇqೆ•ೕೆ #ರುದ:ಾJ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂvೋಗ -ಾ@, ನನD nಾಸJೕ ಅ[0ೕಲ #@aೕಗಳನುD ನನD ಸಂಬಂpಕೆ ಕಳ†WVರುವ ಮ 01ಾಜು' 6ಾಗೂ ಆತನ ಪ8D ಜಯಂ8ರವರ #ರುದ: 1ಾನೂನು ಕNಮ ಜರುJಸೇ1ೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ 1ೋ1ೊಳ†jTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ತಮ` #ZಾV, ಸW/-“ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 ಬಸೇಶರನಗರ  ೕ ಾಾ ಸರಹI:ನ i.ಇ.ಎಂ.ಎ) cೇಔe, ಅ{ೕಘ ಅಾಟ'<ಂ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;ೇ TಾೕQನವ.ೆ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.ೊಂIೆ ಅಸಭUಾJ ವ8'ಸು84ದ:ನು. ಈ ಬೆ,, Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ೆ ಪN[DV, ಪN8.ೋಧ ವUಕ4ಪ@VXಾಗ ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು ತನD ಬC ೇ1ಾದಷು ಹಣ#ರುವ^XಾJ, ಆದ.ೆ ತನೆ ತನD ಪ8DPಂದ ಸುಖ#ಲ0 ತನೆ -ಾನVಕಾJ Qರುಕುಳಾಗು84Xೆ ತನD ಪ8D ಸು-ಾರು 5 ವಷ'ಗCಂದ ೇ.ೆಯವ.ೊಂIೆ ಸಂಪಕ' 6ೊಂIದು:, ನನೆ ;ೆಮ`I 6ಾ?ಾJXೆ, ,ೕನು ಸಲS ಅqÀÓ -ಾqÉÆÌà ,ನೆ ಸಂಬಳ KಾV4 -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ Oಾ‰-1 ರವೆ ಆFೕಷaಡು84ದ:ನು. ಇXಾದ ಸು-ಾರು 9 8ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರ ಹ?ೆಯ ಾNಹಕ aೕೇb ಎಂಬುವವರು Oಾ‰-1 ರವೆ Tಾನು ಈಾಗcೇ ತನD d;ಾDಭರಣಗಳನುD 1ೆಂೇಯ ಮುತೂ4e fೈ;ಾ  ನ 0, ಅಡ-ಾನ#hರುವ^XಾJ, ಆ d;ಾDಭರಣಗಳನುD ,ೕವ^ i@V1ೊಂಡು ಖೕI -ಾ@1ೊCj,, ಆ d;ಾDಭರಣಗCೆ ತಗುಲುವ ಉCದ ಹಣವನುD ನನೆ 1ೊ@ ಎಂದು 1ೋ1ೊಂಡ <ೕ.ೆೆ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚aಂIೆ ಈ ಬೆB ಚd'V, aೕೇb ಎಂಬುವವರ ಾUಂ‹ nಾTೆೆ 7 ಲmದ 80 Oಾ#ರ ಹಣವನುD ಆತನ nಾTೆೆ 6ಾQV, ಅಡ-ಾನ#hರುವ ಆಭರಣಗಳನುD i@V1ೊಂಡು Tೆೆದು1ೊಂಡು ಬ,D ಎಂದು ಆತ,ೆ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು 8CVರುTಾ4.ೆ. aೕೇb ಹಣ ಪoೆದ ನಂತರ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರ ಕ.ೆೆ ಸSಂpVXೇ ತcೆಮ.ೆV1ೊಂoಾಗ ಈ #qಾರಾJ ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು Oಾ‰-1 ರವೆ ,ೕ;ೇ ಇದ:1ೆ> 1ಾರಣೆಂದು, aೕೇb ರವೆ ,ೕ@ದ ಅಷು ಹಣವನುD ,ೕ;ೇ ಭV1ೊಡೇ1ೆಂದು ಆಾಗ Oಾ‰-1 ರವೆ -ಾನVಕಾJ WಂOೆ ,ೕಡು84ದ:ನು. WೕJರುವ 0, ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು 2024;ೇ ಜುcೈ 8ಂಗಳ ಒಂದು Iನ Oಾ‰-1 ರವೆ aೕೇb ರವೆ ,ೕ@ರುವ ಹಣದ #qಾರಾJ -ಾತ;ಾಡೇಕು ಬ,D ಎಂದು Oಾ‰-1 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 ರವರನುD ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು ತನD iC ಬಣsದ ವ;ಾ' 1ಾನ 0 ಕೂV1ೊಂಡು .ಾKಾLನಗರ ಏ9ಾ ಸುTಾ4@V1ೊಂಡು -ಾತ;ಾಡುTಾ4 Oಾ‰-1 ರವೆ ಕು@ಯಲು ಜೂU ,ೕ@zÀÄÝ, Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಅದನುD ಕು@ಯು84ದ:ಂTೆuೕ ಸಲS ,Xೆ: ಬಂದ ೕ8ಯ 0 vಾಸಾJದು:, ಆ ನಂತರ Oಾ‰-1 ರವರನುD ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯು .ಾKಾLನಗರ 2;ೇ ಾ0‹ ನ 0ರುವ ನಂ:84, @ ಾNಂ€ 1ೋರ) cಾ€•, ೕ ೆNೕw .ೆOೋ ಾ ಇ 0ೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ, 6ೋMೇ) ನ Oಾಗತ1ಾರ.ಾದ Oಾ‰-23 ರವೆ 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 ರವೆ ;ಾನು ,;ೊDಂIೆ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂvೋಗ -ಾ@ರುವಂತಹ ಸ,DೇಶವನುD ನನD {ೈ) ನ 0 #@aೕ -ಾ@1ೊಂ@Xೆ:ೕ;ೆ. ,ೕನು ;ಾನು 9ಾಾಗ ಕ.ೆದರೂ ನ;ೊDಂIೆ ಬರೇಕು, ಸುಖ 1ೊಡೇಕು ಇಲ0ಾದ.ೆ ,ನD #@aೕವನುD Oಾ-ಾLಕ KಾಲTಾಣದ 0 ಹiಡುವ^XಾJ Oಾ‰-1 ರವೆ ೆದ1ೆ 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' ಆಸSTೆNೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ ಅ 0ನ ೈದU.ಾದ Oಾ‰-24 ರವೆ ಈ1ೆಯು ನನD ಪ8D ಎಂದು 8CVzÀÄÝ, ಆಗ Oಾ‰-24 ರವರು Oಾ‰-1 ರವೆ ಪೕ‰V ಅಾಷ' ಆಗುವ -ಾTೆNಗಳನುD ,ೕ@ರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಆ ನಂತರ Oಾ‰-1 ರವೆ ಆ.ೋಗUದ 0 ಏರುೇ.ಾಗು84ದ: 1ಾರಣ ಸದ ೋ)* ಕಂಪ,ಯ uೕ 1ೆಲಸ ಮುಂದುವ.ೆಸುವ^ದು ಸಯಲ0 ಎಂದು aೕdV Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು ಎ1 ಆ.ೋ‚ಯ ಬC TೆರC Oೈ -ಾಡುವ ಬೆB 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 ಪ8DaಂIೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ#ಟು1ೊಂ@ರುವ ಪ^ರುಷ ತನD ಸಹಚರ.ೊಂIೆ Oೇ1ೊಂಡು ನನೆ Lcೆ0 -ಾ@, 1ೊcೆೆ ಪNಯ8DVದು: ಈ ಬೆB ಈಾಗcೇ [Nೕ.ಾಂಪ^ರ  ೕ ಾೆಯ 0 1ೇಸು XಾಖcಾJರುವ^XಾJ, ತನೆ #ಪೕತ -ಾ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 ,;ೊDಂIೆ ಮುಕ4ಾJ ತನD 6ೆಂಡ8ಯ ಎcಾ0 #qಾರಗಳನುD -ಾತ;ಾಡೇಕು, ,ೕ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;ೊDಂIೆ ಸಂTೋಷIಂದ ಸಹಕVದ.ೆ ,ನDನುD ಈ Iನ j°Ãªï -ಾಡುವ^XಾJ 8CV, Oಾ‰-1 ರವ.ೊಂIೆ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂvೋಗ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ J1 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ UÉÆïïØ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀA¥À¤UÉ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. Oಾ‰-1 ರವರು 6ೊಸXಾJ ೇ.ೆ ಕoೆ 1ೆಲಸ1ೆ> Oೇ1ೊಂ@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.ೋ‚aಂIೆ 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 ರವೆ ತನD {ೈ) ನಂಬ ,ಂದ ಾMಾw ಮೂಲಕ ಕಳ†WVರುವ^ದು ತ,nೆPಂದ ಮತು4 ಲಭU Oಾ‘ಾ’ಾರಗCಂದ ದೃಢಪhರುತ4Xೆ. ಆದ:ಂದ ಎ1 ಮತು4 ಎ2 ಆ.ೋ‚ಗಳ #ರುದ• <ೕಲ>ಂಡ ಕಲಂ ಗಳ ೕvÀå -ಾನU ;ಾU9ಾಲಯ1ೆ> Xೋ•ಾ.ೋಪಾ ಪhಯನುD ,ೇIV1ೊಂ@Xೆ. ,ೇದ;ೆ: ಸದ ಪNಕರಣದ 0 6ೆd•ನ Oಾ‘ಾ’ಾರಗಳ† ಲಭUಾದ 0, 6ಾಗೂ ಎ–.ಎ.ಎ) ವರIಗಳನುD ಕಲಂ:193 i.ಎ .ಎ.ಎ. ಅ@ಯ 0 6ೆಚು•ವ Xೋ•ಾ.ೋಪಾ ಪhಯನುD -ಾ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 1ೋ1ೆಯ <ೕ.ೆೆ Oಾ‰ಯ 6ೇC1ೆಯನುD Xಾಖ V1ೊಳjಲು [Nೕಮ8. dªÀÄÄ£Á ಡಬೂ0—.6ೆ˜.V.ನಂ. 13236 .ಾKಾLನಗರ ೕ ೕ ಾೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇವರು ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು ಬಂIರುTಾ4.ೆ. Oಾ‰ೆ Oಾ‰ೆ Oಾ‰ೆ Oಾ‰ೆ ಪN-ಾಣ ಪN-ಾಣ ಪN-ಾಣ ಪN-ಾಣ ವಚನವನುD ವಚನವನುD ವಚನವನುD ವಚನವನುD vೋIಸcಾPತು vೋIಸcಾPತು vೋIಸcಾPತು vೋIಸcಾPತು. 6ೆಸರು XXXXXX ತಂXೆಯ 6ೆಸರು XXXXXX - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 ವಯಸು XXXXXX ಉXೊUೕಗ nಾಸJ 1ೆಲಸ (ಐV ೋ)*) ಾಸಸ™ಳ XXXXXX (Oಾ‰ ಸಇqೆz Pಂದ ತಮ` 6ೇC1ೆಯನುD ,ೕಡಲು ಬಂIರುTಾ4.ೆ ತಮೆ 6ೇC1ೆಯನುD ,ೕಡಲು 9ಾರು ಸಹ ಒTಾ4ಯ ಪ@Vರುವ^Iಲ0 6ಾಗೂ ನನೆ ಇXೇ ೕ8 6ೇC1ೆ 1ೊಡೇ1ೆಂದು 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 Wಯ ವUವOಾ™ಪಕ?ೆಂದು OೇರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ಇದQ>ಂತ ಪ›ವ'ದ 0 ಪNTೆUೕಕಾJ ಈ ಉXೊUೕಗ -ಾಡು84ದು: ನನೆ ಆಯ' ೋಲ* ಕಂಪ,ಯ ಮ 01ಾಜು'ನರವರು ಅವರ ಕಂಪ,ೆ Oೇರಲು ಆ6ಾನವನುD 1ೊhದು: ಅವರ 1ೆಲಸದ ಆಫ ಉತ4ಮಾJದ: 1ಾರಣ ಮತು4 ನನೆ ರmೆ ೇ1ಾJದ: 1ಾರಣ ಸದ ಕಂಪ,ೆ OೇXೆ. ಸದ ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 Oೇದ 2-3 8ಂಗCೆ ನನD ಅನುಭವವನD ’ಾ.ೆ ಎ.ೆದು ಆ ಕಂಪ,ಯನುD Mಾw 2 ;ೇ Oಾ™ನದ 0 ಬರುವಂTೆ -ಾ@Xೆ:. ಇದಂದ -ಾ ೕಕರು ನನDನುD ಎಲ0ರ ಮುಂXೆಯೂ 6ೊಗಳ†84ದು: ಅXೇ ಸಮಯದ 0 ಅವರು ;ೋಡುವ V™8ಯೂ ಸಹ ಬದcಾJರುತ4Xೆ. 2. ನಂತರ ;ಾನು ಅವರ ಬC ಇದರ ಬೆB ಚd'V ;ಾನು ಆ ೕ8ಯ ಮW?ೆ ಅಲ0 6ಾಗೂ ನನೆ ೆ?ೆದ ಮಕ>Cರುತ4Xೆ ಎಂದು 8CVದು: ಅದ1ೆ> ಅವರು ಅವರ 6ೆಂಡ8ಯು ಕ?ೆದ 5-6 ವಷ'ಗCಂದ ೇ.ೆ ಪ^ರುಷ;ೊಂIೆ ಅಕNಮ ಸಂಬಂಧವನುD 6ೊಂIದು: ನನD ಬC ಸಂಬಂಧವನುD -ಾ@1ೊಳ†jವಂTೆ 6ಾಗೂ ಈಗ ,ೕ@84ರುವ ಸಂಬಳQ>ಂತ 6ೆd•ನ ಸಂಬಳ ,ೕಡುವ^XಾJ 6ಾಗೂ Tಾೇ ಕಂಪ,ಯನುD iಟು 6ೋದ.ೆ ನಷ ಉಂMಾಗುತ4Xೆ ಎಂದು 8CVದರು. ಅದ1ೆ> ;ಾನು .ಾLೕ;ಾ< 1ೊಡುವ^XಾJ 6ೇCXೆ. ಅದ1ೆ> ಅವರು ಈ ೕ8 ಎ)ಲ -ಾಡುವ^Iಲ0 ಎಂದು 6ೇCದರು. ಅಷರ 0uೕ ಯಲಹಂಕದ ZೆNೕಯ ೋಲ* ಕಂಪ,ಯ 0 ಕಳವ^ ಪNಕರಣ ಆJದು: ಅವರ ಗಮನವ^ ಸದ ಪNಕರಣದ ಕoೆ 6ೋPತು. 3. ಆ ಘಟ;ೆ9ಾದ 4-5 8ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ aೕೇb ಎಂಬುವೆ ಸಂಬಂpVದ dನDದ ಒಡೆಗಳನುD ಅಡ ಇhರುವ^ದನುD i@ಸುವ ವUವ6ಾರದ ಬೆB ;ಾನು ಮ 01ಾಜು'ನರವರ ಬC ಚd'Vದು: ಅದ1ೆ> ಅವರು ಒ‚S ನಮ` ಕoೆPಂದ -ಾಡೇ1ಾJರುವ ಕNಮಗಳನುನ -ಾ@ ಉತ4ಮ cಾಭ1ೆ> i@V1ೊಡಲು aೕೇbರವರ nಾTೆೆ ಹಣವನುD - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 ನಗದು ರೂಪದ 0 ರೂ.7,80,000/-ವನುD oೆಾVe -ಾ@ರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಆ ಾNಹಕ ಆತನ nಾTೆೆ 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 -ಾ@ ಕಷಗಳನುD 6ಾಗೂ ಮುಂXೆ ಆಗುವ Tೊಂದ.ೆಗಳನುD ಸಹ #ವVರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ನಂತರ ಆತ ರೂ.7,80,000/- ಗಳನುನ ನನD -ಾ ೕಕರ nಾTೆೆ ಜ-ಾ -ಾ@ದ ಬೆB ಸಂXೇಶ ಮತು4 XಾಖcೆಯನುD ಕCVದು: ಅದನುD ನನD -ಾ ೕಕೆ TೋVXಾಗ ಅವರು ಜ-ಾ ಆJಲ0 ಎಂದು 6ೇCದ:ರು. ಈ ಹಣ1ೆ> Tಾೇ ಜಾಾ:ರರು ತಮ` ಸಂಬಳದ 0 ಕ@ತೊCಸುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ ಎಂದು 8CVದರು. ನಂತರ ;ಾನು ಅವೆ ೕ ೕಸೆ ದೂರನುD ,ೕಡುವಂTೆ 8CVದು: ಅವರು ಇದ1ೆ> ಸ9ಾJ ಸSಂIಸXೇ WಂXೇಟನುD 6ಾQರುTಾ4.ೆ. 4. ಇXೆcಾ0 ಆದ ನಂತರ dÆ ಅಥಾ ಜುcೈ 2024 ರ 0 ಮ 01ಾಜು'ನರವರು aೕೇbನ #qಾರದ ಬೆB -ಾW8 VQ>ದು: ತಮ` KೊTೆ ೌಪUಾJ -ಾತ;ಾಡೇಕು 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 ತmಣೇ ಬರುವಂTೆ 8CVದ 1ಾರಣ ;ಾನು ಅವರ 1ಾನ 0 ಕುCತು1ೊಂ@ದು: ತುಂಾ ಾ9ಾ1ೆ ಆಗು84ದ: 1ಾರಣ 1ಾನ 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 ತmಣೇ ನನೆ 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 ಪಚಯ -ಾ@ ಆ ವUQ4ಯ ಆ’ಾರ 1ಾ€' ಮತು4 ಮ 01ಾಜು'ನರವರ ಆ’ಾರ 1ಾಡ'ನುD ,ೕ@ ಒಂದು 1ೋೆಯನುD 1ಾP:V ನನDನುD ಸದ 1ೋೆೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋದರು. ಅ 0ದ:ವರು ನನD V™8ಯ ಬೆB 1ೇಳcಾJ ಪN9ಾಣ -ಾ@ದ 1ಾರಣ ಸುOಾ4Jದು: #ZಾNಂ8 ಪoೆದು 6ೋಗುವ^XಾJ 8CVದ:ರು. 5. ಸದ 1ೋೆೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ ನನDನುD ನೂQದ 1ಾರಣ ನನD ತcೆೆ ೆMಾJದು: ನನD ಇqೆzಯ #ರುದ•ಾJ cೈಂJಕ ಸಂಪಕ'ವನುD 6ೊಂIದು: ನನೆ ಏ;ಾಗು84ತು4 ಎಂಬುದು ೊTಾ4ಗು84ರ ಲ0. ನನೆ ಸಂಪ›ಣ'ಾJ ಪN ೆ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಆತನ ಬC 1ೇಳcಾJ ತಮೆ ಅ;ಾ.ೋಗUಾJದ: 1ಾರಣ ಇ 0Xೆ:ೕೆ ಎಂದು 6ೇCದರು. ನನೆ ಏ;ೋ ಆJXೆ ಎಂಬ vಾವ;ೆ ಉಂMಾJದು: ಮರುIನೇ ಅವರನುD 1ೇಳcಾJ ಅವರು ನನD KೊTೆ ಕ?ೆದಂತಹ nಾಸJ mಣಗಳನುD {ೈ)ನ 0 d8NೕಕV1ೊಂ@ದ:ನುD TೋVXಾಗ ನನೆ Zಾ‹ ಆJದು:, ಅವರು ಇದನುD Oಾ-ಾLಕ KಾಲTಾಣಗಳ 0, ಎcಾ0 -ಾU;ೇಜಗCಗೂ ,ಮ` ಕುಟುಂಬದವಗೂ 6ಾಗೂ ಮದುೆ ವಯVೆ ಬಂIರುವ ಮಕ>Cಗೂ ಕCಸುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ ಎಂದು - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 ಾ0‹<ೕ) -ಾ@ ಕ.ೆXಾಗ ಬರುವಂTೆ 6ಾಗೂ Tಾನು 6ೇCದ ೕ8 1ೇC1ೊಂಡು 6ೋಗುವಂTೆ ೆದ1ೆಯನುD 6ಾQರುTಾ4.ೆ. 6. ನoೆದ ಘಟ;ೆಯನುD ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ KೊTೆ ಚd'Vದ.ೆ C£ÁºÀÄvÀ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ ಎಂಬ ಭಯIಂದ -ಾನVಕ Tೊಂದ.ೆ ಯನುD ಅನುಭ#VರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ಎರಡು 8ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ನನೆ ;ಾನು ಗ|'}9ಾJXೆ:ೕ;ೆ ಎಂಬ #qಾರ ೊTಾ4Pತು. ತmಣೇ ;ಾನು ಅವೆ ಕ.ೆ -ಾ@ ಕ.ೆ -ಾ@ ಆಸSTೆNೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ ಅಾಶ' -ಾ@ಸುವಂTೆ 8CVXೆ: ಅವರು ನನDನುD ನಚ' ಆಸSTೆNೆ ಕ.ೆದು1ೊಂಡು 6ೋJ ಅ 0 ಅವರು ಸWಯನುD ನನD ಗಂಡನ 6ೆಸನ 0 -ಾ@ರುTಾ4.ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನೆ ಅ;ಾ.ೋಗU ಉಂMಾJದು: ಇದನುD ಅವೆ 6ೇCದರೂ ಸಹ ಪ^ನಃ 2-3 ಾ ನನDನುD cೈಂJಕಾJ ಬಳV1ೊಂ@ರುTಾ4.ೆ. ನಂತರ ;ಾನು 1ೆಲಸವನುD iಡುವ^XಾJ 6ೇCXಾಗ ಆತ ಅವರ 6ೆಂಡ8 ಮತು4 ಅವರ 6ೆಂಡ8ಯ KೊTೆಾರ ತನDನುD 1ೊcೆ -ಾಡಲು ಪNಯ8DV ಹcೆ0 -ಾ@ರುವ #qಾರಾJ [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 ಅವೆ ನನDನುD ತix1ೊಳjಲು ಅವ1ಾಶ 1ೊhರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ಆತ ನನೆ Tಾೇ ಸತಃ ಖು£Pಂದ ತix1ೊಳ†jವ ೕ8 ಇರೇ1ೆಂದು 8CVದ:ರು. ನಂತರ ನನD ಮುಂXೆuೕ ಈ WಂXೆ d8NೕಕVದ: #ೕ@aೕವನುD @ ೕe -ಾ@ ಮ;ೆೆ 6ೋJ ಎಂದು 8CVರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಇXೆcಾ0 ಆದ -ಾರ;ೇ Iವಸ ನನೆ 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 ಎಲ0ಗೂ ಅ[0ೕಲ #ೕ@aೕಗಳನುD ಕCVರುTಾ4.ೆ. ಇದಂದ 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 ಆಗಾರದು ಎಂಬ ಉXೆ:ೕಶIಂದ ಬಸೇಶರ ನಗರ ಾೆಯ 0 I.:28.06.2025 1ೆ> 6ೋJ ನoೆದ - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 ಘಟ;ೆಯನುD 8CVದು: ,ೕmಕರು ಇರದ 1ಾರಣ I;ಾಂಕ 30-06-2025251ೆ> ನನD ದೂರನುD ೕ ೕಸರು VೕಕVರುTಾ4.ೆ. ನಂತರದ ಕNಮಗಳನುD ೕ ೕಸರು ಜರುJVರುTಾ4.ೆ ಎಂದು 8Cದು1ೊಂ@ರುTೆ4ೕ;ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನೆ ೇ.ೆ 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 the 1 (2021) 9 SCC 35 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 (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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27535 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2026 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