The Karnataka High Court stayed criminal proceedings against a Coorg homestay owner accused after an employee allegedly raped a 33-year-old American tourist. The Court questioned charges under the repealed Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, while allowing proceedings against the principal accused to continue.
The Karnataka High Court has stayed criminal proceedings against the owner of a homestay in Coorg who was prosecuted following the alleged rape of a 33-year-old American tourist by one of the establishment’s employees. The Court observed that the charges against the homestay owner were based, in part, on provisions of the repealed Foreigners Act, 1946, and also questioned the applicability of a charge under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to failure to report an offence.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while hearing the owner’s petition challenging the framing of charges, held that the prosecution’s case against him required closer examination since the offences alleged did not appear to disclose any legal liability under the provisions invoked.
Granting interim protection, the Court stayed all further criminal proceedings against the homestay owner while making it clear that the trial and investigation against the principal accused would continue uninterrupted.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Orders Delhi Govt to Report on Threat to Unnao Rape Victim’s Mother
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that the charge-sheet had invoked provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946, despite the legislation having already been repealed and replaced by the new immigration framework.
Taking note of this submission, Justice Nagaprasanna observed:
“In the light of the chargesheet now filed against the petitioner… the learned counsel Angad Kamath appearing for the petitioners submits that the offence under Foreigner’s Act cannot even be maintained as it is alleged under the repealed Act. In so far as 239 is concerned there is no statutory obligation to report the said offence to the authorities. Therefore, in that light there shall be an interim order of stay of all further proceedings qua the petitioner till the next date of hearing. The pendency of this petition or the interim order qua accused no. 2 will not come in the way of further trial, proceedings, or investigation or whatever the case might be qua the other accused.”
The Court consequently stayed the criminal proceedings against the homestay owner until the next hearing while allowing the prosecution against the remaining accused to proceed.
The case stems from an incident that allegedly occurred on April 12, when a 33-year-old tourist from the United States was staying at a homestay in Coorg, Karnataka. According to the prosecution, a 25-year-old employee working at the homestay allegedly mixed an intoxicating substance into the tourist’s drink before sexually assaulting her.
Following the complaint, police launched an investigation and arrested the employee, who remains in judicial custody. His application for bail was subsequently rejected by the trial court after considering the seriousness of the allegations. The incident drew significant public attention because of concerns regarding the safety of foreign tourists visiting the region.
Nearly a week after the alleged assault, police arrested the homestay owner on April 19, alleging that he had concealed information relating to the offence instead of promptly informing the authorities. Investigators claimed that the owner failed to discharge his legal obligations after learning about the incident.
However, the owner denied any criminal involvement and maintained that he neither participated in nor facilitated the alleged offence. He was subsequently granted bail by the competent court on May 2.
After securing bail, the homestay owner approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the order framing charges against him. Before the High Court, it was argued that the charge-sheet itself demonstrated that the investigating agency had abandoned the serious allegations initially made against him. The charge-sheet did not accuse the owner of committing rape, sexual assault or participating in any criminal conspiracy.
Instead, the prosecution proceeded only on allegations that he failed to report the offence to the authorities and sought to prosecute him under:
- Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), dealing with intentional omission to provide information regarding certain offences; and
- provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946, despite the legislation having already been repealed.
The petitioner contended that neither of these charges could legally survive.
The High Court also examined the applicability of Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Court observed that the prosecution had not demonstrated any statutory obligation requiring the homestay owner who was neither an eyewitness nor directly involved in the commission of the alleged offence to report the incident under the circumstances presented.
Since the charge-sheet itself did not allege his participation in the offence of rape or sexual assault, the Court found that the legal basis for prosecuting him under Section 239 required detailed examination. This formed one of the principal reasons for granting interim protection.
While extending relief to the homestay owner, the High Court clarified that its interim order was confined solely to him. The Court specifically directed that the stay would not affect the investigation, trial or any other proceedings against the principal accused, who continues to face prosecution for the alleged sexual assault of the American tourist.
The Karnataka High Court has posted the matter for further hearing on July 30, when it will examine in greater detail the legality of the charges framed against the homestay owner. The outcome of the proceedings is expected to determine whether the prosecution against him can continue or whether the criminal case deserves to be quashed altogether.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Angad Kamath. The State was represented by Special Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE