A sexual harassment case against a 66-year-old Tumakuru man has been quashed by the Karnataka High Court, which held that an allegation of looking at a woman in an inappropriate manner cannot, by itself, be treated as a demand or request for sexual favours under Section 75(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, once the complainant herself disowned her core allegations during investigation.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has brought to an end the chargesheet and criminal proceedings against a Tumakuru resident accused of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation, after noting that the complainant, in a further statement recorded by the police, specifically denied that he ever demanded sexual favours from her [Hafeez Khasim v. State of Karnataka and Another].
Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the criminal petition filed by Hafeez Khasim under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), by an oral order dated October 30, 2026.
What the complainant told the police two days later
Appearing for the petitioner, Rakshan M.K. drew the Court’s attention to a further statement of the complainant recorded on June 6, 2025. In it, she said she had gone to the petitioner’s house only to settle the financial dispute. She mentioned that the petitioner had looked at her inappropriately, but categorically stated that she had not alleged any demand for sexual favours. The Investigating Officer, the petitioner’s counsel said, still filed a chargesheet under Section 75(1)(ii).
Neither the complainant’s counsel nor the High Court Government Pleader disputed that the statement was recorded or what it said.
Where the Court drew the line on Section 75(1)(ii)
For the Court, the essential ingredient of Section 75(1)(ii) is a demand or request for sexual favours, and that must be alleged and backed by material gathered in the investigation. It observed:
“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.”
The further statement, it added, did more than stay silent on the point. It specifically disowned the allegation:
“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 loan dispute behind the complaint
The complaint was lodged on June 4, 2025. As recorded, the complainant said she was in financial difficulty when an acquaintance introduced her to the petitioner, from whom she obtained money without interest. When repayment was delayed, she claimed the entire amount had been repaid, while the petitioner allegedly insisted on interest.
The complaint alleged that on April 21, 2025, she went to the petitioner’s house in Tumakuru to settle the dispute. After her son-in-law, who had accompanied her, left for work, the petitioner allegedly sought sexual favours from her by promising money and whatever she desired. It further alleged that he threatened her with physical harm if she did not repay the money.
Tumakuru Women Police Station registered Crime No. 102/2025 under Sections 74, 75(1)(ii), 75(1)(iv), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed on July 16, 2025 only under Sections 75(1)(ii) (demand or request for sexual favours) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation). The case was numbered C.C. No. 176/2025 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru.
ALSO READ: Strong Imprint Of Manipulation: Karnataka HC Quashes Rape Case Against Advocate
The intimidation charge falls with it
Turning to Section 351(2), the Court noted that the sub-section only prescribes punishment. The ingredients of criminal intimidation sit in sub-section (1), namely a threat of injury with intent to cause alarm or to compel an act, and these must first be disclosed. The further statement confined itself to the allegation of an inappropriate look and contained no allegation of any threat.
Why inconsistencies did not decide it, and why this case was different
The Court acknowledged that inconsistencies between a complaint and a later statement would not, in every case, justify quashing, since credibility is ordinarily a matter for trial. Here, though, the further statement disowned the essential ingredient of the offence, and neither the complainant nor the State disputed its authenticity. It concluded:
“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.”
The Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, to prevent abuse of the process of law, and quashed the chargesheet and the proceedings in C.C. No. 176/2025 insofar as the petitioner is concerned. It made clear that its observations were confined to the consideration of the petition.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling draws a clear line around the ingredients of Section 75(1)(ii) BNS: the offence requires a demand or request for sexual favours, and conduct short of that cannot be stretched to fit it. It also shows when a complainant’s own undisputed further statement, recorded during investigation, can justify quashing at the threshold, while reaffirming that ordinary inconsistencies remain a matter for trial. The order does not comment on whether any other conduct alleged in the original FIR could have been pursued, as the chargesheet was confined to two offences.
Case Title: Hafeez Khasim v. State of Karnataka and Another
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 14967 of 2025, 2026:KHC:60690
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 30, 2026
Appearances: Advocates A.S. Kulkarni and Rakshan M.K. for the petitioner; HCGP Ranjith Kumar N. for the State; Advocate Mohammed Ummar Farooq for the complainant
