Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the expression “sexually explicit” under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 cannot be narrowly interpreted to cover only depiction of persons engaged in sexual activity. The Court observed that the legislative intent behind the provision is to prevent exploitation through publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form, and whether the alleged conduct falls within its ambit is a matter requiring trial.

The Court, while refusing to quash criminal proceedings against a woman accused of transmitting sexually explicit videos to the complainant’s husband and relatives, held that seriously disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The allegations regarding transmission of the material and applicability of Section 67A must be tested through evidence before the trial court.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, "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. In any case, 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. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would not attract Section 67A of the IT Act would become a matter of trial and not the crime being obliterated even for Section 67A, in the teeth of seriously disputed questions of fact". 

Advocate B.S. Jeevan Kumar appeared for the petitioner and B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional SPP appeared for the respondent.

The prosecution case was that the complainant, a Senior Manager at a Company, was subjected to repeated sexual assault by the proprietor, accused No. 1, who had drugged her and committed rape at a hotel after introducing her to hotel staff as his wife. He thereafter blackmailed her using videos of the sexual acts recorded on his phone.

When the complainant joined a new company after leaving employment, accused No. 2, the petitioner and wife of accused No. 1, transmitted the sexually explicit videos via WhatsApp to the complainant's husband and relatives on June 28 2025. The complainant's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC narrated the sustained manipulation, coercion, sexual exploitation and eventual dissemination of compromising material in painful specificity. A chargesheet was filed against both accused under Sections 64(1), 68 and 351(2) of the BNS and Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act.

The petitioner contended that no material worth the name surfaced against her and that even forensic examination of her mobile phone did not reveal any photographs or videos. The Court rejected this, holding that a careful perusal of the complaint, chargesheet summary and the victim's statement unmistakably disclosed allegations attributing an active role to the petitioner in transmitting the compromising material.

“…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 to the complainant’s husband and relatives”, the Bench had noted.

“Interposed between the lodging of the complaint and the filing of the charge sheet is the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164(5) of the CrPC. said statement is elaborate, detailed, and leaves little room for ambiguity as to the complainant’s version of events. It narrates, with painful specificity, the alleged acts of manipulation, coercion, sexual exploitation, blackmail, and the eventual dissemination of private material that forms the substratum of the prosecution case. The statement also sheds light on the emotional, psychological, and social devastation allegedly suffered by the victim”, the Bench said further.

The petition was dismissed with the clarification that observations made would not influence the trial court.

Cause Title: Jayanthi G. v. State of Karnataka and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:27535)

Appearances:

Petitioner: B.S. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate.

Respondent: B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional SPP, Keerthi Reddy with Padmanabha J., Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: