The Karnataka High Court has recently declined to quash a criminal complaint lodged against a lawyer who stands accused of raping an intern. The court, presided over by Justice M Nagaprasanna, stated that any interference would be tantamount to endorsing the accused’s alleged actions.
Justice Nagaprasanna observed,
“If a naive student of law, enters the office of an Advocate, as an intern; in turn gets to face these horrendous acts, it would have a chilling effect on the entire practice and profession.”
The court was hearing a petition from the accused lawyer seeking to quash certain charges against him. The intern, a law student, had joined the lawyer’s office in August 2021. According to her complaint, the lawyer attempted to rape her one evening when they were alone in the office. The student also claimed to have recorded a phone call in which the lawyer admitted to the attempted rape. As a result, a complaint was lodged for rape and related offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The accused lawyer admitted guilt under Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 354C (voyeurism), and 354D (punishment for stalking) of the IPC. However, he argued that there was no prima facie evidence for the remaining charges. He contended that the chargesheet did not indicate the commission of rape, and even the complaint did not suggest it. He also highlighted that the complainant had informed the doctor during her medical examination that there was no sexual intercourse.
The court observed that the accused lawyer held the positions of a teacher and a person in a position of trust, and was in a position of control or dominance over the complainant. Therefore, he fulfilled all the roles under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), and 376C(a) of the IPC, which penalize individuals who commit rape against a woman while in a position of authority, trust, or control.
Regarding the contention that there was only an attempt to rape and no actual commission, the court noted that this was a disputed question of fact that would require a trial. The court also pointed out that the complainant’s statement to the doctor was an extra-judicial one and whether or not rape was committed was a matter of evidence.
The court further noted that it could not delve deep into the facts under its jurisdiction under Section 482 (saving of inherent powers of the High Court) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The judge also noted that the trial court was yet to frame charges and there was no reason to believe that it would not apply its mind.
Consequently, the court determined that its interference was not warranted and dismissed the plea. The accused lawyer was represented by Advocate Parameshwar N Hegde, the State by High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) KP Yashodha, and the complainant by Advocate Sophia