(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.02/2025 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura of Shikaripura, registered by the 1st respondent Shikaripura Police Station for the offences U/S 376(2)(b), 323, 504, 427, 376(2) (n) (f) OF IPC.)

Cav ORDER:

1. The petitioner, sole accused, is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2025 (arising out of crime in Crime No.32 of 2024), pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura registered for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(b), 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 323, 427, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri N.D.Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Srikanth Patil K, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

               The petitioner, is a permanent teacher in Dhanaraja Hemaraja Government High School, Shikaripura. The 2nd respondent, the complainant joined the same school as a guest teacher. An aquaintance blossom between the two. The acquaintance led the petitioner taking liberties with the 2nd respondent. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner used to call her inside the office room, close the window and try to sexually assault and threaten that if she would complain it to anybody else, he would get her removed from work by complaining to the Block Education Officer. The petitioner later is said to have clicked some nude photographs of the 2nd respondent and threatened her that he would upload the same on social media and on that score, holding the photographs, committed sexual intercourse several times by taking her to several places. When these things became too much, the complainant is said to have complained to the jurisdictional Police with regard to the acts of the petitioner which becomes a crime in Crime No.32 of 2024. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The concerned Court registers C.C.No.2 of 2025 and issues summons to the petitioner. During the crime stage, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Petition No.8189 of 2024. Since no interim order was granted, the police file the charge sheet. Filing of charge sheet is what is challenged in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet does not indicate any force for it to become rape. They are all consensual acts between the petitioner and the complainant. The charge sheet is filed without conducting proper investigation. It is termed as rape for acts that are done between the two for more than a year. He would seek quashment of entire proceedings.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the petitioner being in a superior and dominant position of being a regular teacher and the complainant working as a guest teacher, misusing his position, the petitioner first shoots several nude pictures and then calls her to various places and commits acts of sexual assault. On 16-01-2024 the petitioner is said to have barged into the bedroom of the complainant and removed his clothes at which point in time, the husband and brother of the complainant comes in, before whom the petitioner had undertaken that he would not harass the complainant. All these, the learned counsel submits, cannot but be sexual acts. These are acts which are performed by the petitioner being in a dominant position threatening that he would get the complainant removed if she does not yield to his desire. He would further contend that after the children leave the school and when the complainant was in the library, the petitioner used to go there and show the complainant porn videos. On seeing such acts of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent goes mentally depressed and when the husband enquired, she has narrated all the incidents and had also taken psychiatric treatment.

6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would also toe the lines of the complainant in contending that the offence against the petitioner is horrendous and this Court should not lend its protective hand on the mistaken notion that those are consensual acts between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet where all the ingredients of rape are met and, therefore, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown trial.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of events are a matter of record. The petitioner is a permanent teacher in Dhanaraja Hemaraja Government High School, Shikaripura. The 2nd respondent/complainant has joined the said school as a guest teacher and the two got acquainted with each other. On the day the first instance of sexual assault happens, the petitioner is said to have showed nude photographs of the complainant and on that score threatens that he would upload the photographs in social media and begins to harass the complainant for sexual favours, apart from threatening the complainant that he would get her removed by making a complaint before the Block Education Officer. The complainant was forced to surrender herself not once but on several occasions. The complaint is in vivid detail as to how the petitioner forcibly took the complainant to different places by divulging her pictures and committed sexual assault for over a year. The further allegation is that even in the library the petitioner used to harass the complainant by asking her to watch porn videos and performed the same acts when he came to her house.

9. The further allegation is that the complainant became mentally depressed and had to take psychiatric help. At that point in time, the brother and the husband of the complainant laid a trap upon the petitioner and caught him in the house of the complainant when he removed his clothes. It is then the petitioner is said to have undertaken that he would not harass the complainant. Nonetheless, he had committed the said acts. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows:                         

     

    

       

  

The complaint narrates, in vivid and distressing detail, how the petitioner allegedly exploited asymmetry of power, first by displaying or capturing nude images, then by threatening dissemination and thereafter, coercing sexual favours under the twin specters of professional ruin and public humiliation. Such allegations, if accepted at the face value, for the limited purpose of this petition, depict not consent but submission extracted under duress.

10. The Police after investigation file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows:                                               



 

The summary of the charge sheet depicts the usage of Electronic evidence and the images recovered from the petitioner’s mobile phone, though lacking metadata, is alleged to contain several images of the complainant. Therefore, the defence of consensual intimacy at this stage, cannot eclipse the specific assertion of intimidation and coercion. The complainant joins the school as a guest teacher which was on temporary basis. The petitioner, a permanent teacher of the said school did wield influence, threatened the complainant by holding on certain images, which according to the complaint were nude pictures. These acts of the petitioner which have forced sex upon the complainant on every occasion cannot be said to be consensual sex. It is forced sex, albeit, prima facie.

11. The offences that are alleged against the petitioner are the ones punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(b), 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 427, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Sections 376(2)(b), 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC read as follows: -

               “376. Punishment for rape.—(1) … … …

               (2) Whoever,— …. ….

                     …

               (b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant;

               ….

               (f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or

                ….

                (n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman

                ….

               shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

  (Emphasis supplied)

               Section 376(2)(b) contemplates punishment where a public servant commits rape of a woman in his custody or subordinate sphere. The petitioner, being a teacher, in a Government institution and the complainant functioning under his administrative influence, prima facie bring the allegations within the ambit of this provision. Whether the statutory ingredients are ultimately established or not is a matter of trial. Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC punishes a person who commits rape upon a teacher or a person who has authority towards a woman. The position of the petitioner and the respondent – complainant as explained hereinabove, would prima facie become the ingredients of Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC. The other is Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, which punishes a person who commits rape repeatedly on the same woman. The complaint and the summary of the charge sheet narrate this act against the petitioner. Thus, at this juncture, the complaint and the charge sheet cannot be said to be bereft of foundational substance. Therefore, the ingredients of Sections 376(2)(b), 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC are prima facie met in the case at hand. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown trial. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Y v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Revision No. 5721 of 2024, disposed on 17.10.2025) , wherein the Court holds as follows:

“…. ….….

               21. Facts of this case are unique. The revision petitioner was a Deputy Collector at the time when he met the respondent No. 2 because respondent No. 2 was subordinate to him being posted as Patwari. Accordingly, the revision petitioner was not only public servant but was in a position of authority qua the respondent No. 2 prosecutrix. The revision petitioner was already married and had a spouse living at that time and that marriage of the revision petitioner still subsists and the spouse is alive and living with the revision petitioner.

               22. In Indian Penal Code the "sex by abuse of authority" has been recognized in dual ways. One under the sub clause of section 376 if proved as non-consensual and under section 376C if proved consensual. If proved to be consensual, it is termed as "sex by abuse of authority" and squarely falls under section 376C of the IPC.

               23. The prosecutrix is alleging intercourse by the revision petitioner by abusing his authority exerting pressure in the pretext of securing closure report in the cases filed by the wife of revision petitioner. The material collected during investigation is to the effect that the revision petitioner is taking every step to ensure that respondent no.2 could not be got married with someone else claiming that she is his wife despite the fact that he has a living spouse.

               24. When the allegations relate to sex by abuse of authority, then the delay in lodging the First Information Report has no such force as in ordinary cases. Here is not the case where a woman is approaching the law enforcing agencies alleging that intercourse was on the false promise of marriage and the accused has withdrawn from the promise and has not fulfilled the promise. Here is the case where a public servant and also a person in authority who is already married with a living spouse is insisting to continue relationship with a woman despite communicating unwillingness. The respondent No. 2 has alleged in the First Information Report that her signatures on the mutual agreement dated 05.07.2022 were procured under pressure. The other referred material does not satisfy the test of very rare and exceptional cases where the defence material can be looked into by the Court at the time of framing of charges. Accordingly, Rukmini Narvekr (supra) does not apply in this case.”

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the glaring and disturbing facts as narrated hereinabove and the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, to which I am in respectful agreement of, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial.

12. Another offence alleged against the petitioner is the one punishable under Section 427 of the IPC which deals with mischief of entering into one’s premises. The petitioner has entered into the house of the complainant intimidated her and has committed the act of sexual assault. Therefore, the offence under Section 427 of the IPC is also met.

13. The offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC, which deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her to have illicit intercourse. The complaint and the summary of the charge sheet narrate the way the victim is induced and compelled to have sexual relation. Whether the ingredients of the offence is made out or otherwise are serious questions of fact, which can only be thrashed out in a full blown trial.

14. What remain are the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. They read as follows:

               “504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

               506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.— Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

               if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.— and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The allegations noted hereinabove would further attract Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC as well, which relate to intentional insult and criminal intimidation. The threats to tarnish reputation and secure professional termination if proven, unmistakably resonate with the language and spirit of these provisions. The allegations undoubtedly meet the ingredients of the aforesaid offences.

15. To extend the protective hand of this Court in the face of such prima facie material, would in effect, trivialize the gravity of accusations and prematurely stifle the course of justice. The acts alleged, when viewed in their totality, do not depict a relationship of mutual volition, but one shadowed by dominance, fear and coercion. Whether these allegations withstand the rigours of trial, is for the trial Court to determine. At this stage, the petitioner must answer the charges in a full fledged trial.

16. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands dismissed.

                   It is made clear that the observations made during the course of this order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitoner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the same would not bind or influence further proceedings before the concerned Court.