Can A Man Merely Looking At A Woman Inappropriately Be Accused Of Demanding Sexual Favours? Karnataka HC Quashes Section 75 BNS Case

KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court has quashed a sexual harassment and criminal intimidation case against a man, holding that merely looking at a woman in an inappropriate manner cannot be treated as a demand for sexual favours without supporting evidence.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that an offence under Section 75(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 requires an actual demand or request for sexual favours. The Court found that the evidence collected during the investigation lacked this essential requirement.

The case began with a complaint filed on 4 June 2025. The woman had borrowed an interest-free loan from the accused, and a dispute arose regarding repayment.

Read Also:- IPC 354A | Sexual Harassment and Punishment for Sexual Harassment

In her original complaint, she alleged that when she visited the man's house on 21 April 2025, he demanded sexual favours and threatened her.

However, in her further police statement recorded on 6 June 2025, the woman clarified that she had visited the house to resolve the financial dispute. She stated that the man had only looked at her inappropriately and denied making allegations about sexual demands or threats.

Despite this clarification, the police filed a chargesheet under Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2) BNS, forcing the accused to approach the High Court for relief.

The Court examined the complainant's subsequent statement and found that she had specifically withdrawn the allegations forming the basis of the criminal charges.

Read Also:- Sexual Harassment Case | Women Wearing Jeans ‘Corrupts’ Boys? Delhi High Court Answers

The High Court noted that the woman had clearly denied making any allegation of sexual demands against the accused in her subsequent police statement. Neither her counsel nor the State disputed this clarification. The Court held that merely looking at a woman inappropriately cannot be treated as demanding sexual favours under Section 75(1)(ii) BNS, as the essential ingredients of the offence were missing.

The Court further explained that although the original complaint contained allegations capable of attracting the sexual harassment provision, the woman's later statement contradicted its essential requirement.

It observed:

“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 High Court also examined the allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS.

It stated:

“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 Court found that the woman's subsequent statement did not contain any specific allegation of threats by the accused.

Accordingly, 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 Court clarified that contradictions between an original complaint and a subsequent statement do not automatically justify quashing criminal proceedings. However, this case was different because the complainant had expressly withdrawn the allegations necessary to establish the offences.

The Bench 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 High Court held that the investigation failed to find any evidence supporting the allegations of sexual demands or criminal intimidation. Therefore, continuing criminal proceedings against the man under Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2) BNS would serve no useful purpose.

The Karnataka High Court quashed the chargesheet and consequential criminal proceedings against the accused, finding that the investigation had failed to establish the essential ingredients of either offence.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Man Gets Relief From Sexual Harassment Case: Karnataka High Court quashes criminal proceedings due to lack of supporting evidence.
• Inappropriate Look Is Not Sexual Harassment Under Section 75(1)(ii) BNS: Court rules that merely looking at a woman inappropriately does not amount to demanding sexual favours.
• Woman Withdraws Serious Allegations: Complainant denies earlier claims of sexual demands and threats in her subsequent police statement.
• Chargesheet Filed Despite Woman’s Clarification: Man faces criminal prosecution even after the complainant disowns the key allegations.
• Allegations Alone Cannot Justify Prosecution: High Court reinforces that criminal charges must satisfy essential legal requirements and be supported by investigation material.