- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18501 CRL.P No. 3146 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD AFFAAN AHMED S/O MOHAMMAD AZAM AHMED AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.5, 3RD I MAIN ROAD NEAR ST. PAUL'S HIGH SCHOOL RAMAIAH LAYOUT, THOMAS TOWN BENGALURU NORTH - 560 084. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUDARSHAN KUMAR G. N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BIAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. KIM SUNG KYUNG D/O KIM YONG MOK AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO.1002-1601, GILL21 1503BEON, AAMDAERO NAMDONG-GU INCHEAON, REPUBLIC OF KOREAN Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18501 CRL.P No. 3146 of 2026 POSTED CODE - 22333 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 BNSS PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0003/2026, BIAL P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI AS PER ANNEXURE B AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 75(1)(i) OF BNS ACT. 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 is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.3/2026, pending beforet he Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, for the offence punishable under Section 75(1)(i) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Heard Sri Sudarshan Kumar G.N., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner is said to be employed in the Immigration Section at the Bengaluru International Airport, approaches the complainant, checks the flight ticket and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18501 CRL.P No. 3146 of 2026 questions about the check-in baggage. It is the averment in the petition that, when the petitioner has had an issue with the TSA screening and the bag was making a beeping sound in the screening section. It transpires that the petitioner instructed the complainant that instead of returning the bag to the screening section, which would take a long time and suggested that a personal check would be faster. The complainant is said to have agreed as the time for the next flight was approaching. 4. The allegation is that, the petitioner initially conducted a pat down in the public area and when the people began to notice, he instructed the complainant to move to a different location. Later, the petitioner asks the complainant to follow him to the men's restroom, as women's restroom was occupied. It is here, the complainant alleges that the petitioner made her to stand in “T” position, repeatedly touched her, squeezed and grabbed her chest and inappropriately touched at every part of her body, without her consent in the garb of conducting a check. Later, the petitioner is said to have hugged the complainant. This forms the fulcrum of the lis. On these allegations, a complaint is registered and after registration of the crime, the petitioner is at the doors of this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18501 CRL.P No. 3146 of 2026 Court calling in question the crime was on the score that the petitioner was not at all present at the Immigration Office and it is only a concocted story by the complainant upon the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds set out in the petition and submit that there is no harassment done by the petitioner. The petitioner was only performing his duty. The statements are contrary to each other and would seek quashment of the crime. 6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on the other hand would submit that petitioner being an Officer of the Immigration would not have behaved in a manner in which he has behaved that too, on a lady of another nationality. He would submit that it is a matter of investigation in the least and this Court should not interfere in such a complaint. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The entire issue has triggered by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18501 CRL.P No. 3146 of 2026 registration of a complaint. The complainant, who is a South Korean national, passes through the Immigration of the Bengaluru International Airport. The petitioner claiming to be the Officer of the Immigration is said to have taken the complainant to the Men's Restroom, made her to stand in “T” position and touched every part of her body inappropriately, only to sexually harass the complainant. The complainant, South Korean lady registers a complaint before the Bengaluru International Airport Police. The complaint reads as follows: “TO, The police inspector BIAL Police Station. FROM. Kim Sung Kyung Incheon, Korea, Pspt No-M146W1816 Sub: Reporting Of sexual Harassment By Mr, Mohammed. I would like to report an incident of sexual harassment committed by an airport staff member. After passing immigration at the airport I was approached by a male staff who asked to see my flight ticket and questioned about my to checked baggage he claimed there was an issue after TSA screening and said my bag had made a beeping sound He told me that returning to the screening area would take too long and that a personal check would be faster emphasizing that my flight time was approaching Relying in his appoint authority and urgency, I complied. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18501 CRL.P No. 3146 of 2026 He initially conduct a pat- down in a public area. when people began to notice he instructed me to move location we relocated near gate C7, where he told me to sit and wait while he reported something. He then gestured for me to follow him and directed me into the men's restroom inside he instructed me to stand in a "T" position and claimed to conduct a body check During process he repeatedly touched squeezed and grabbed my chest. He instructed me to turn around and again touched my chest from behind, I did not give concern to this physical contact. After instructing me to turn once more he suddenly hugged me and said “Thank you”. I did not consent to any of the sexual or physical contact described above. I believe the accused abused his position and authority to isolate me and subject me to non-consensual sexual touching. This conduct inappropriate, unlawful, and not part of any legitimate security procedure. I respectfully request that this matter formally investigated and strict action is latern against the staff. Thank you.” (Emphasis added) The issue now would be, whether this could become the ingredients of the ‘harassment’ or ’sexual harassment’ under Section 75(1)(i) of the BNS. Section 75(1)(i) of the BNS reads as follows: “75. (1) A man committing any of the following acts:— - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18501 CRL.P No. 3146 of 2026 (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or” (Emphasis supplied) The afore-quoted section would clearly indicate that the ingredients have been met against the petitioner in the case at hand. The petitioner has tried to outrage the modesty of a woman by touching her inappropriately at every part of her body in the garb of checking. If this would be interdicted or interfered at this stage, it would result in putting a premium upon the acts of the petitioner, who alleged to have indulged in sexual harassment on a woman that too, of a foreign national. 9. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 99