The Karnataka High Court refuses to quash the case against four youths accused of circulating an obscene video targeting a lecturer, holding that the allegations must be tested at trial; the allegations are untested and the accused are presumed innocent.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has declined to quash criminal proceedings against four youths accused of circulating an obscene video targeting an assistant professor at a private college, holding that whether the video depicted her is a matter for trial [Four Youths v. State of Karnataka and Another]. The allegations are untested, the Court has expressed no final view on guilt, and the accused are presumed innocent.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petitions in an order passed on Monday, October 12, 2026. The case number was not reported.
The case
The complaint was filed on March 6, 2020 by the assistant professor, who is the second respondent. A chargesheet followed on July 17, 2024, invoking Section 66C (identity theft) and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complainant’s name is withheld here and the contents of the video are not described.
The accused argued that the photograph used came from the complainant’s Instagram account and that the woman in the video was someone else. Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports, however, indicated facial similarities.
What the Court said
Justice Govindaraj held that the contention that the woman in the video was not the complainant could not be accepted at this stage, noting that the FSL report found the video bore “the facial resemblance of the Respondent 2 (complainant)”. On what follows from that, he said:
“Whether it is indeed so would have to be subject to trial”
Stressing how grave such allegations are, the Judge remarked that they are “(more) serious than IPC 302 (murder)”. He also held that the complainant’s reputation was affected, particularly because the content was shared in the locality where she worked.
The result
Concluding that a full trial was required, the Court dismissed the petitions seeking to quash the case.
Why the order matters
When an accused says the video does not show the complainant but forensic reports point the other way, that is a question of fact, and the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction is not the place to settle it. The order keeps that dispute for the trial court, where the accused can test the forensic evidence and the prosecution must prove its case.
Case Title: Four Youths v. State of Karnataka and Another (case number not reported)
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 12, 2026
Appearances: Advocate K Ravishankar for the petitioners