Karnataka High Court.
Credit: PTI Photo
Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has refused to quash rape case proceedings against a 25-year-old business development executive.
The court noted that the allegations disclose serious accusations of sexual assault committed under duress, supported by specific instances and substantiated through the victim’s detailed statement under CrPC section 164 before the magistrate.
The petitioner had befriended the victim through Instagram in May 2023. The victim/complainant claimed that she was subjected to a consistent pattern of assault, sexual violence, intimidation and digital blackmail by the petitioner after their relationship ended in April 2024.
She stated that the accused had retained her private WhatsApp chats and repeatedly threatened that her parents would be informed if she disclosed the incidents, due to which there was a delay in filing the complaint.
Challenging the charges pressed against him for rape, outraging modesty, grievous hurt and criminal intimidation, the petitioner argued that the relationship had been consensual since 2023. He stated that the complaint was actuated by mala fides and lodged with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on him.
On the other hand, the government advocate submitted that the materials in the complaint, FIR and charge sheet, when read collectively, disclose specific and serious allegations which warrant a full-fledged trial. It was further stated that the victim’s statements are consistent and clearly implicate the petitioner.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz noted that the complaint averments reveal a pattern of coercion, threats, wrongful confinement, physical assault, sexual exploitation and psychological intimidation, despite the complainant’s attempts to end the relationship.
"The allegations disclose serious accusations of sexual assault committed under duress, supported by specific instances and substantiated through the victim’s detailed statement under Section 164 CrPC, i.e., before the magistrate. At this stage, these assertions cannot be discarded as inherently improbable or manifestly false, nor can they be adjudicated on the basis of disputed facts within the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC/Section 528 BNS," the court said.