Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash IT Act Case Against Rape Accused's Wife Over Alleged Circulation Of Survivor's Explicit Videos
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash FIR against a wife accused of transmitting obscene videos of her husband allegedly sexually assaulting an employee at his establishment, holding that the act of transmission itself constitutes an offence under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221]
It had been alleged that during the course of her 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.
Meanwhile, the allegation against the petitioner/accused no.2 was that, sexually explicit material or the activities between the husband and the complainant were shot on a mobile phone and circulated by the petitioner to the complainant's husband and her relatives.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the wife [accused no.2] will be liable to face trial under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act for allegedly sharing the survivor's explicit video.
Though the petitioner contended that even the forensic examination of her mobile phone did not indicate any evidence of transmission of obscene videos or photos, the court disagreed by pointing out that the veracity of allegations made can only be ascertained through trial.
“…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. 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…” the court noted.
The single judge bench underscored that that courts cannot conduct a 'mini-trial' while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court added that the controversy at hand was 'enveloped in seriously disputed questions of fact, questions that cannot be conveniently resolved in proceedings invoking inherent jurisdiction'.
“…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…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”, the court said while relying on Kaptan Singh v. State of UP (2021).
The petitioner-wife has been booked by the Rajajinagar Police Station under Sections 64(1), 68, 351(2) of the BNS and Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act.
The complainant, who worked at Arya Gold Company, alleged that accused No. 1 (also the proprietor of the company) had sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions and recorded the said acts. The petitioner-wife allegedly transmitted these videos to the complainant's husband and relatives, purportedly causing severe mental trauma and social ostracization to the complainant.
Case Title: Jayanthi G. v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 2163 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221