- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
RAJBIR YADAV v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
- 1 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010503192019
NC: 2026:KHC:40865
CRL.P No. 1289 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1289 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
RAJBIR YADAV
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O SATMI YADAV, R/O NO.14,
DREAM PARADISE LAYOUT,
BASAVAPURA MAIN ROAD,
ELECTRONIC CITY,
BANGALORE - 560 100. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABHILASH MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY STATE BY MICO LAYOUT PS,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SWETA SINGH
SAI LAKSHMI PG, NO.10,
28THMAIN, BTM LAYOUT,
2NDSTAGE, BENGALURU CITY.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.15575/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE VI
- 2 -
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU INITIATED UNDER CR.NO.547/2017
REGISTERED AT MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION AGAINST
PETITIONER U/S 354(A) AND 354(D) OF IPC, SAME IS ANNEXED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging proceedings in CC no.15575/2018 on file of VI ACMM, Bengaluru arising out of Crime no.547/2017 by Mico Layout Police Station for offences punishable under Section 354A and 354D of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), this petition is filed.
2. Sri Abhilash Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Sri Kapil Dixit, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was sole accused in complaint filed by respondent no.2 on 11.11.2017 stating that she was working in Shiksha Infotech Pvt. Ltd. earlier and residing in a PG since two and half years and accused was working along with her at Intellus Software Ltd. as Software Engineer and though she left him a month earlier, he was stalking her and forcing her to get married and at 10:00 p.m. on 10.11.2017, he came outside her PG and abused her and sought action. Based on same, Crime
- 3 -
no.547/2017 was registered by Mico Layout Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 354A and 354D of IPC and after investigation, charge sheet was filed in CC no.15575/2018 for said offences. Challenging same, this petition is filed.
3. It was submitted that entire prosecution material and charge sheet would not bear any of essential ingredients of offences alleged. It was submitted that complainant is stated to have known accused and alleged that he was pestering her for marriage and was abusing her in front of PG, which would not constitute either of offences under Sections 354A or 354D. It was submitted that initiation and continuation of proceedings against petitioner would be abuse of process and sought for allowing petition.
4. Petition is opposed by learned HCGP for respondent no.1-State. It was submitted, after completion of investigation, recording statements and drawing mahazar and finding sufficient material, charge sheet was filed. There was specific assertion in complaint about accused stalking complainant, which would satisfy requirement of Section 354D. Therefore, there was no merit in challenge and sought dismissal.
- 4 -
5. Respondent no.2-complainant is served but unrepresented.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record.
7. This petition is by sole accused challenging initiation of proceedings against him for offences punishable under Sections 354A and 354D of IPC.
8. Main ground urged is that entire charge sheet material even if taken on face value would not constitute any of essential ingredients of offences alleged and therefore, continuation of proceedings would be abuse of process.
9. From charge sheet, imputation against petitioner are that he was stalking complainant and at 10:00 p.m. on 10.11.2017 arrived outside her PG and abused her. In support of averments of complainant, statements of owners of PG are recorded as CWs.2 and 3. Perusal of their statements would indicate that on hearing someone abusing complainant, they enquired with her and she informed them that accused was employed in a Company where she was a working earlier and
- 5 -
was pestering her for marriage, was stalking and was abusing her. They state that when they confronted accused, he left from scene.
10. To constitute offence under Section 354A, any of instances mentioned in Sub-section 1(i) to (iv) are required to be established. Allegations are about 'unwelcoming advances'. But Section 354A (1)(i) would attract only in case of 'physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures'. That, unwelcoming advances required to be established cumulatively with physical contact and explicit sexual overtures. Mere pestering for marriage would not fall within ambit of said provision. There are no allegations about demand for sexual favours, about showing pornography against her will, or about sexually coloured remarks. Therefore, invocation of offence under Section 354A would not be justified. Likewise, even insofar as allegation of stalking, firstly there is no corroborative material, secondly, proviso provides for exceptions. Offence of stalking would be complete only where a man follows a woman, contacts or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite clear
- 6 -
indication of disinterest by such woman. In instant case, complainant has not stated about expression of her disinterest to accused. In absence of same, pestering for marriage may not attract Section 354D. Especially when as per statements of CWs.2 and 3, on being affronted by CWs.2 and 3 and being informed of disinterest, accused is stated to have left scene. In view of above, prosecution material would not substantiate either of offences invoked against petitioner. Hence, continuation of proceedings would amount abuse of process.
11. Consequently, petition is allowed; proceedings in CC no.15575/2018 on file of VI ACMM, Bengaluru arising out of Crime no.547/2017 by Mico Layout Police Station for offences punishable under Section 354A and 354D of IPC stand quashed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
Alert