Looking At Woman Inappropriately Does Not By Itself Constitute Demand For Sexual Favours U/S 75(1)(ii) BNS: Karnataka High Court

Finding no investigative material supporting such a demand, the Court quashed the charge sheet against a 66-year-old man for sexual harassment and criminal intimidation.

The Court was hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the charge sheet and consequential proceedings pending before a court in Tumakuru for offences under Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2) of the BNS.

A Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed: “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.”

Advocate A.S. Kulkarni appeared for the petitioner. High Court Government Pleader Ranjith Kumar N. appeared for the State, while Advocate Mohammed Ummar Farooq appeared for the complainant.

Background

The complainant had allegedly been introduced to the petitioner while experiencing financial difficulties. According to the complaint, the petitioner advanced her certain amounts without interest. A dispute subsequently arose concerning repayment and the petitioner’s alleged demand for interest.

The complainant alleged that she went to the petitioner’s house to resolve the dispute. After her son-in-law left the premises, the petitioner allegedly sought sexual favours from her by promising money and other benefits. She further alleged that she escaped from the house with difficulty and that the incident affected her mental health.

On June 4, 2025, the police registered offences under Sections 74, 75(1)(ii), 75(1)(iv), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS. During the investigation, however, the complainant gave a further statement in which she said that she had visited the petitioner’s house to resolve their financial dispute.

Although she stated that the petitioner had looked at her in an inappropriate manner, she categorically said that he had not demanded sexual favours. She also did not sustain the original allegation that he had threatened her with physical harm over the repayment dispute.

The investigation culminated in a charge sheet only under Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2) of the BNS. The petitioner sought its quashing, contending that the complainant’s undisputed further statement negated the essential ingredients of both offences. Neither the complainant’s counsel nor the State disputed the recording or contents of that statement.

Court’s Observations

Demand Or Request Is Essential To Section 75(1)(ii) BNS

The Court noted that Section 75(1)(ii) specifically deals with a demand or request for sexual favours. The existence of such a demand or request must therefore be alleged and supported by the material collected during the investigation.

It held: “The 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.”

The original complaint contained an allegation which, if established, would attract Section 75(1)(ii). The subsequent statement of the complainant, however, presented a materially different account.

Complainant Specifically Disowned Sexual-Favour Allegation

The Court found that the further statement was not merely silent about the alleged demand for sexual favours. The complainant had specifically disowned making such an allegation against the petitioner.

The Bench observed: “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.”

There was no other material before the Court substantiating the alleged demand or request. The prosecution under Section 75(1)(ii) could consequently not be sustained.

Criminal Intimidation Ingredients Were Also Absent

The Court separately examined the charge under Section 351(2) of the BNS. It explained that criminal intimidation requires a threat of injury to a person, reputation or property, accompanied by an intention to cause alarm or compel the person to act or refrain from acting in a particular manner.

Sub-section (2), the Court clarified, only prescribes the punishment. The ingredients constituting criminal intimidation are contained in Section 351(1) and must be disclosed before the punishment under sub-section (2) can be invoked.

The original complaint alleged that the petitioner had threatened the complainant with physical harm if she did not repay the amount claimed from her. Her subsequent statement did not sustain that allegation and contained no specific assertion of any threat intended to cause alarm.

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.”

Not Every Inconsistency Justifies Quashing

The Court clarified that inconsistencies between a complaint and a subsequent statement would not invariably justify quashing criminal proceedings. Ordinarily, the credibility of witnesses and the effect of their statements are matters for appreciation during trial.

It nevertheless found the present case distinguishable because the complainant had specifically disowned the allegation constituting the essential ingredient of Section 75(1)(ii) and had not sustained the criminal-intimidation allegation. The authenticity and contents of her further statement were undisputed.

The Court observed: “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.”

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the charge sheet and consequential proceedings against the petitioner for offences under Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2) of the BNS.

It exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to prevent an abuse of the process of law. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the consideration of the present petition.

Cause Title: Hafeez Khasim v. State of Karnataka and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:60690)

Appearances

Petitioner: A.S. Kulkarni and Rakshan M.K., Advocates

Respondents: Ranjith Kumar N., High Court Government Pleader; Mohammed Ummar Farooq, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment