Looking Inappropriately At Woman Does Not Amount To Demand For Sexual Favours In Absence Of Evidence: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that an allegation of looking at a woman in an "inappropriate manner" cannot, by itself, be treated as a request for sexual favours under Section 75(1)(ii) BNS, while quashing the chargesheet against the petitioner accused of sexual harassment and criminally intimidating a woman.

Section 75 refers to offence of sexual harassment wherein Section 75 (1)(ii) states that a man making a demand or request for sexual favours would amount to sexual harassment.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj based this conclusion on the fact that the complainant, in her further statement, had disowned all these allegations and accused the petitioner of having looked at her in an inappropriate manner.

The court said that essential ingredient of the said provision is the existence of a demand or request for sexual favours by the accused. Unless such demand or request is alleged and supported by the material collected during investigation, the offence under the said provision cannot be sustained it added. 

“It is significant that the said further statement is not merely silent with regard to the demand for sexual favours. Respondent No.2 has specifically disowned having made such an allegation against the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP do not dispute the recording or contents of the said statement. 

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 High Court said.

It added, “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.”

In the absence of any material to substantiate the alleged demand for sexual favours, the continuation of the prosecution under Section 75(1)(ii) of the BNS cannot be sustained, the Court held.

Similarly, while examining the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 351 of the BNS, the Court noted, “A perusal of Section 351 indicates that, for the offence of criminal intimidation to be attracted, there must be a threat of injury to the person, reputation or property of another, accompanied by an intention to cause alarm or to compel such person to do an act which he or she is not legally bound to do, or to omit an act which he or she is legally entitled to do.”

Justice Govindaraj observed that in the further statement, the complainant has made no specific allegations of any threat by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Court held, “Thus, the material collected during investigation does not disclose the essential ingredients of criminal intimidation as contemplated under Section 351(1) of the BNS. Consequently, the offence punishable under Section 351(2) of the BNS cannot be sustained.”

Inconsistency between the original complaint and the subsequent statement

The High Court said that the mere existence of inconsistencies between a complaint and a complainant's subsequent statement would not, in every case, be sufficient to quash criminal proceedings. Ordinarily, it noted, the credibility of witnesses and the effect of their statements must be taken into account.

Noting the facts of the present case, the Court observed, “The further statement dated 06.06.2025 specifically disowns the allegation forming the essential ingredient of Section 75(1)(ii) and does not sustain the allegation of criminal intimidation. Significantly, the authenticity and contents of the said further statement are not disputed by either the complainant or the State.”

It further said, “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.”

The High Court, thus, quashed the chargesheet and consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

Background

The matter originated from a complaint lodged on June 4, 2025. The complainant stated that she had borrowed an interest-free loan from the petitioner, and financial disputes arose over repayment. In her initial complaint, she alleged that when she visited his house on April 21, 2025, the petitioner demanded sexual favours and threatened her.

However, in a further statement recorded by the police on June 6, 2025, the complainant said that she had visited the house solely to resolve the financial dispute. She explicitly stated that the petitioner had only looked at her inappropriately and disowned making any allegation regarding a demand for sexual favours or threats. Despite this, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet under Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2) of the BNS, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court.