The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash a criminal case against the wife of a rape accused who allegedly, filmed the commission of rape by her husband on his employee.
In the instant case, the accused husband was the proprietor of Arya Gold Company.
High Court while refusing to quash the case noted that the complainant-victim's statement was elaborate, detailed, and left little room for ambiguity as to her version of events.
On the controversy involved in the case, the high court has observed that it is enveloped in seriously disputed questions of fact - questions that cannot be conveniently resolved in proceedings invoking inherent jurisdiction.
While refusing to quash the case, the High court has relied on the Supreme Court's repeated caution that quashing of criminal proceedings is an exception and not the rule.
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash a criminal case against the wife of a rape accused who allegedly, filmed the commission of rape by her husband on his employee.
"A careful perusal of the complaint, the summary of the charge sheet, the statement of the victim, and the statement recorded before the learned Magistrate unmistakably discloses allegations attributing an active role to the petitioner, at the very least, in the transmission of the compromising material to the complainant’s husband and relatives," the High Court has noted.
Jayanti G approached the High Court with a prayer to quash the case registered against her for offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 68, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
In the instant case, the accused husband was the proprietor of Arya Gold Company. The complainant joined the said establishment and was serving in the capacity of a Senior Manager. During the course of such employment, the accused-husband committed acts of sexual assault upon the complainant by employing deceit, coercion, and manipulation.
The complainant was sexually harassed because she caused loss to the company after being duped by one subscriber by name Yogesh who had hypothecated certain gold ornaments in Muthoot finance and had requested the complainant to purchase the said gold on behalf of the accused's Company, towards which the complainant is said to have transferred ₹7,80,000/- to the account of Yogesh, who had later stopped responding to the complainant.
High Court while refusing to quash the case noted that the complainant-victim's statement was elaborate, detailed, and left little room for ambiguity as to her version of events. "It narrates, with painful specificity, the alleged acts of manipulation, coercion, sexual exploitation, blackmail, and the eventual dissemination of private material that forms the substratum of the prosecution case. The statement also sheds light on the emotional, psychological, and social devastation allegedly suffered by the victim", a bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna has noted.
Justice Nagaprasanna has also cited the intention of the legislature in introducing Section 67 of the IT Act, being publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form, saying that it cannot be restricted by construing the term ‘sexually explicit’ to only showing an activity of being indulging in sex. "In any case, when the intention of the legislature was to do away exploitation of women or children or any person in electronic form by publishing or transmitting any obscene material, the term ‘sexually explicit’, cannot be said to be not covering activity in respect of which the accusations are made," the High Court judge has noted.
On the controversy involved in the case, the high court has observed that it is enveloped in seriously disputed questions of fact - questions that cannot be conveniently resolved in proceedings invoking inherent jurisdiction. It has thus viewed that such disputed factual matrices can be unravelled only upon appreciation of evidence in a full-fledged trial, where witnesses are examined, cross examined, and the evidentiary record tested through the crucible of judicial scrutiny.
While refusing to quash the case, the High court has relied on the Supreme Court's repeated caution that quashing of criminal proceedings is an exception and not the rule. "Inherent jurisdiction, though wide in amplitude, is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of cases where continuation of proceedings would amount to manifest injustice. Where serious triable issues arise and material collected during investigation prima facie supports the prosecution case, judicial interference at the threshold would be wholly impermissible", the single judge bench has observed.
Case Title: JAYANTHI G. vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Bench: Justice M Nagaprasanna
Order Date: June 9, 2026
