Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Law Intern's Rape FIR Against Advocate, Says It May Have Chilling Effect On Legal Profession

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a rape complaint registered against a Magaluru based advocate by a law student working as an intern in his office.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed,

"If a naive student of law, enters the office of an Advocate, as an intern; in turn gets to face these horrendous acts, it would have a chilling effect on the entire practice and profession. Therefore, it is for the accused to come out clean in a full blown trial."

As per the complainant, the law student joined petitioner's office as an intern and on the fateful evening, the two were alone in the office. It is alleged that the petitioner called the complainant into his cabin and committed the "horrendous" acts. Complainant claimed she also had call recording wherein petitioner had confessed that he attempted to rape her. Following which the complaint was registered under Sections 376, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), 376C, 511, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 506, 34, 384, 388 and 389 of the IPC and  chargesheet came to be filed.

The petition admitted to his guilt under Section 354A, B, C and D but contended that there is no evidence, even prima facie, to include the offence of rape under Sections 376, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), 376C(a) and 511 of the IPC. It was argued that the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet, even if they are taken to be correct, they nowhere indicate any offence of commission of rape; the complaint though narrates attempt to rape, it does not move forward of any commission of rape.

Section 376(2)(f) makes the person liable for punishment who being a relative, guardian or teacher or a person in a position of trust or authority towards a woman commits rape of such woman. Section 376(2)(k) punishes a person who is in a position of control or dominance over a woman commits rape of such woman. Section 376C(a) would make a person punishable for rape if he commits a rape being in a position of authority or in a fiduciary relationship.

Referring to these provisions the Court said “If the ingredients of the complaint are seen, the petitioner fits in all these positions. He is in the position of a teacher or in a position of trust over a complainant. In terms of Section 376(2)(k) he is in position of control or dominance and in terms of Section 376C(a) he is in position of authority, as the complainant was an intern working under the petitioner.”

Dealing with the contention of the petitioner who tried to bifurcate the act stating that it was only a preparation or attempt and not commission and thus serious charges of rape could not be applied, the Court said it is a disputed question of fact which will have to be determined during trial. It observed,

“The incident narrated in the complaint has several hues. The petitioner pulls the hands of the complainant; kisses her; holds her tight; forcefully makes her sit on his lap; presses against her chest; whispered in her ear “love you and want to have you” grabbed the face; removed spectacles, forcibly tried to unbutton her; grabbed her breasts; pressed buttocks and touched all her private parts with bare hands. During all these the victim would clearly notice the erection of penis of the petitioner.

The narration does not remain only in the complaint. But, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement is a vindication of the narration in the complaint. Whether this would be preparation and attempt which is a thin line of difference, and they would require evidence as to what was the subsequent action, after preparation and attempt. This would undoubtedly be in the realm of disputed question of fact.”

Rejecting the submission of the petitioner that the victim, as at the time when she was examined by the doctor which is an extrajudicial statement, narrated that there was no sexual intercourse, the bench held,

“The narration or what has happened would again be in the realm of disputed questions of fact. The CCTV footage and the voice sample, inter alia which are all the charge sheet material would be a matter of evidence with regard to preparation and attempt. Therefore, these matters would be in the territory of seriously disputed questions of fact, as the incident has three ingredients – intention, preparation, an attempt and whether commission has happened or not is the 4th stage, which would be a matter of evidence.”

The Court also expressed its inability to delve deep into the facts in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Thus dismissing the plea, it added, "Outraging the modesty or all other acts performed by the petitioner would undoubtedly mean intention, preparation and attempt. I decline to accept that the commission of offence should be examined by this Court on the basis of the charge sheet so filed and the statements so made by all the witnesses. These are all to be examined during the trial.”

Case Title: Rajesh K S N And State By Karnataka Through Mangalore Women Police Station.

Case No: Criminal Petition no.10550 of 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 261

Date of Order: 11-07-2023

Appearance: Advocate Parameshwar N Hegde for Petitioner

HCGP K P Yashodha for R1.

Advocate Sophia for R2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order