CH NEWS
BENGALURU
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against the wife of a private company owner accused of sharing intimate videos of a woman employee with the survivor’s husband and relatives through WhatsApp after the employee allegedly complained of being raped by her employer.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by Jayanthi, who had sought to quash the FIR registered at Rajajinagar Police Station and the subsequent charge sheet filed against her.
The court observed that the case involves serious allegations and that sufficient material exists to warrant a full-fledged trial. It held that the truth of the allegations can only be determined after evidence is examined during the trial and not at the preliminary stage.
The bench also interpreted the scope of Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, which deals with publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. It noted that the legislative intent behind the provision is to prevent the circulation of sexually explicit or obscene material through electronic media and to protect individuals, particularly women and children, from exploitation.
The court observed that the provision cannot be narrowly interpreted to apply only to scenes depicting sexual acts, as its broader purpose is to curb the electronic transmission of obscene content that violates an individual’s dignity and privacy.
Holding that there were no grounds to interfere with the criminal proceedings at this stage, the High Court dismissed the petition.
According to the prosecution, the complainant, a senior manager at a private company in Bengaluru, alleged that the company owner had sexually assaulted her in a hotel after deceiving and threatening her. He was also accused of recording the incident on his mobile phone.
The complaint further alleged that after learning about the videos, the owner’s wife forwarded them through WhatsApp to the survivor’s husband and other relatives, causing her humiliation and social stigma.
Based on the complaint, Rajajinagar police registered a case, investigated the allegations and filed a charge sheet before the trial court.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that a forensic examination of Jayanthi’s mobile phone did not reveal the alleged videos and therefore the proceedings deserved to be quashed.
The High Court, however, held that such disputed factual issues must be examined during the course of the trial and cannot be decided while considering a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.