Accidental Exposure Of Private Parts To A Woman Cannot Amount To Sexual Harassment U/S 75(2) BNS: Karnataka High Court

The High Court accordingly quashed the proceedings against a man accused of exposing his private part in public after finding that the complaint indicated he was answering nature’s call without noticing the complainant’s presence.

The Court was hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated after the police filed a chargesheet for the alleged offence under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed: “For conduct of the kind alleged to enter the precincts of the offence, the act cannot be viewed in isolation from the circumstances attending it. There must be conduct carrying the necessary sexual overtone and, above all, the requisite mens rea. An accidental or unintended exposure, bereft of sexual intent and not directed towards the woman, cannot, merely because it is witnessed by a woman, be metamorphosed into an offence of sexual harassment.”

Advocate Abhilash H.S. appeared for the petitioner. High Court Government Pleader K. Nageshwarappa represented the State, while Advocate Swati Gopalkrishna appeared for the complainant.

Background

The prosecution arose from a complaint alleging that the petitioner exposed his private part at a public place near Hebbal while the complainant was walking past. Following an investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against him for sexual harassment under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner submitted that he had alighted from a bus and urgently searched for a public restroom. Unable to find one, he began relieving himself by the roadside. According to him, the complainant unexpectedly walked past, and his private part was momentarily exposed when he turned around without knowing that she was present.

He contended that the incident was accidental and lacked any sexual overture, intention or conduct directed towards the complainant. The complainant opposed the petition by alleging that the petitioner had also made gestures and argued that the circumstances should be examined at trial. The State similarly sought dismissal of the petition.

Court’s Observations

The Court held that exposure of the body could not automatically be equated with its intentional exposure to a woman for a sexual purpose. The surrounding circumstances had to impart a sexual character to the conduct before Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, could be invoked.

The Court observed: “The distinction cannot be lost sight of. Exposure of the body and intentional exposure of the body to a woman for a sexual purpose are not synonymous. Criminal law punishes the latter when the statutory ingredients are fulfilled; it cannot mechanically criminalise the former merely because circumstances unfortunately bring it within the sight of another. The surrounding circumstances must lend the act as the colour of the offence alleged. Otherwise, the indispensable element of mens rea would disappear and mere happenstance would be elevated to criminality.”

The Court found that the mere fact that the complainant happened to see the petitioner’s private part could not supply the element of sexual intent required by the penal provision.

The Court noted that the complainant’s statement did not allege that the petitioner had waited for her, called her towards him, followed her, made a sexually coloured remark or deliberately exposed himself after noticing her.

Examining the petitioner’s reaction as recorded in the material, the Court observed: “The facts obtaining in the case at hand are required to be noticed on this bedrock. The petitioner was admittedly answering nature’s call. The explanation offered is that he had searched for a public toilet and, finding none in the vicinity, was compelled by the exigency of nature to relieve himself at the place in question. It is at that point that the complainant walks towards the place where the petitioner was answering nature’s call. Significantly, the statement of the complainant does not narrate that the petitioner was waiting for her, beckoned her, followed her, made any sexually coloured remark or deliberately exposed himself upon noticing her. The reaction attributed to the petitioner, on noticing the complainant, is one of sudden shock. That reaction, far from supplying the element of sexual intent, prima facie travels in the opposite direction.”

The Court consequently found that neither the complaint nor the investigation material disclosed a deliberate act of exposure directed at the complainant or conduct demonstrating sexual intent.

The Court held that criminal intent could not be inferred successively from mere exposure, particularly when the facts necessary to support such an inference were absent. It found that permitting the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.

The Court underscored: “The criminal law cannot be permitted to travel on conjecture from exposure to intention, and from intention to sexual intent, when the foundational facts necessary to sustain that journey are themselves absent. Every unpleasant, embarrassing or socially unacceptable circumstance cannot, on that score alone, be brought within the contours of a penal provision . Therefore, permitting the petitioner to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial on the aforesaid allegations would amount to permitting the process of law itself to become the punishment. Where the very substratum of the prosecution, taken at its highest, does not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged, continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and would result in patent miscarriage of justice. The proceedings, therefore, cannot be permitted to continue.”

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which recognised the High Court’s power to quash proceedings where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Cause Title: Anil Rohan Menezes v. State of Karnataka and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:47384)

Click here to read/download Judgment