Looking At Woman Inappropriately Is Not Sexual Harassment U/S 75 BNS: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against 66-Year-Old Man

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has quashed a sexual harassment and criminal intimidation case against a 66-year-old man, holding that merely looking at a woman in an "inappropriate manner" cannot amount to demanding sexual favours under Section 75(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Read Also:- Success Story – Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, in an order dated October 30, 2026, held that criminal prosecution cannot continue when the complainant herself withdraws the essential allegations and the investigation provides no other supporting material.

The case arose from a financial dispute between the petitioner, Hafeez Khasim, and a woman who had borrowed money from him without interest.

Read Also:- Consensual Relationship Is Not Sexual Harassment: Allahabad HC Calls Lecturer’s Career-Destroying Dismissal ‘Shockingly Disproportionate’

According to the original complaint filed on June 4, 2025, the woman visited the petitioner's house on April 21, 2025, to settle a disagreement over repayment. She alleged that the man demanded sexual favours and threatened her.

Based on her complaint, Tumakuru Women Police Station registered an FIR under Sections 74, 75(1)(ii), 75(1)(iv), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS.

However, during the investigation, the woman gave a further statement on June 6, 2025, stating that she had visited the house only to resolve the financial dispute.

She alleged that the petitioner had looked at her inappropriately but specifically denied making any allegation that he had demanded sexual favours.

Read Also:- Sex Between Husband and Wife Needs Consent Every Time From Both Partners: Gujarat High Court Says Forced Unnatural Acts Cause Serious Trauma

Despite this statement, the police filed a chargesheet on July 16, 2025, under Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2) of the BNS, prompting the man to approach the High Court.

Examining Section 75(1)(ii), the Court clarified that the prosecution must establish a demand or request for sexual favours through the allegations and supporting investigation material.

The High Court observed:

"It is significant that the said further statement is not merely silent with regard to the demand for sexual favours. Respondent No.2 has specifically disowned having made such an allegation against the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP do not dispute the recording or contents of the said statement."

The Court further held:

"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."

Highlighting the difference between the original complaint and the subsequent statement, the Court stated:

"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."

The Court also examined the criminal intimidation charge under Section 351 of the BNS.

Explaining the legal requirements, Justice Govindaraj observed:

"A perusal of Section 351 indicates that, for the offence of criminal intimidation to be attracted, there must be a threat of injury to the person, reputation or property of another, accompanied by an intention to cause alarm or to compel such person to do an act which he or she is not legally bound to do, or to omit an act which he or she is legally entitled to do."

The woman's subsequent statement contained no specific allegation that the petitioner had threatened her. The Court therefore found that the investigation did not establish the necessary ingredients of criminal intimidation.

It 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."

The High Court also clarified that contradictions between an FIR and a later statement do not automatically justify quashing criminal proceedings. Normally, such differences must be examined during trial.

However, the circumstances were different because the complainant had specifically denied the main allegations, and neither the State nor the complainant disputed her subsequent statement.

The Court observed:

"The further statement dated 06.06.2025 specifically disowns the allegation forming the essential ingredient of Section 75(1)(ii) and does not sustain the allegation of criminal intimidation. Significantly, the authenticity and contents of the said further statement are not disputed by either the complainant or the State."

The Court further stated:

"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."

Accordingly, exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Karnataka High Court quashed the chargesheet and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF ALL LAWS AND SECTIONS MENTIONED

CASE DETAILS

COUNSELS APPEARING

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Man Dragged Into Criminal Case: A 66-year-old man faced sexual harassment and intimidation charges following a financial dispute.
• Complainant Denied Key Allegations: The woman later disowned the allegation that he demanded sexual favours, yet police filed a chargesheet.
• Looking Is Not Demanding Sexual Favours: Karnataka HC held that an inappropriate look alone cannot attract Section 75(1)(ii) BNS.
• Allegations Alone Are Not Enough: Criminal charges must be supported by material establishing the essential ingredients of the offence.
• High Court Protects Against Abuse of Law: The Court quashed the chargesheet and criminal proceedings against the man.