In the Matter of Rajesh KSN v. State A second-year legal student at SDM College, the complainant was looking for a work-cum internship. Through a college buddy, she got to know the accused, a practising attorney, and on August 14, 2021, she started working for him. She was promised a monthly salary of Rs 6,000 from the accused in exchange for her friendship on WhatsApp. Without knowing what the accused person was trying to do, the complainant responded to the WhatsApp messages. Through CCTV footage, the accused was observed transmitting images and keeping tabs on the complainant’s activities. The accused expressed a wish to like the complainant by making comments about how she dressed. On September 25, 2021, the accused kissed the plaintiff on the forehead and forced her to sit on his lap, among other provocative actions. He then began to undress, which caused the accuser to be pushed outside by the complaint. The accused warned the complainant that if she said anything, there would be grave repercussions. Additionally, the accused confessed to raping the plaintiff and offered her an apology over the phone. When the complainant went up to the accused’s wife, she was once more intimidated. The police charged the accused on October 18, 2021, for violations of The provisions of sections 376, 511, 354, 506, 384, 388, 389, 204, 203, 212, 120-B, 179, and 202 r/w 149 of the Penal Code, 1860. The accuser was then presented in the petition before the High Court.
The accused’s solicitors argued that he is without a doubt guilty of actions that would be penalised in accordance with Sections 354A, B, C, and D as well as additional offences. The accused, however, passionately argued that there isn’t even prima facie evidence to support charges under sections of the IPC 376, and 511.
The accuser, according to the complainant, actually acknowledged the incident rather than denying its actuality. He would no longer be eligible for quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC for any claimed violations after he confessed the occurrence. The complaint also argued that there is little difference between preparation and attempt and that both would turn into contested issues of fact, therefore interference is not necessary.
Analysis of Court Verdict
Given the particular facts of the case, the single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, concluded that it would not be appropriate for the Court to exercise its inherent authority under Section 482 of the CrPC. According to the Court, interfering would amount to the Court endorsing the accused Petitioner’s wicked desire and wanton passion. Therefore, in a full-fledged trial, it is up to the accused to be found not guilty.
The complaint, which describes the complainant’s interactions with the defendants and their activities, was reviewed by the court. It was mentioned that the culpability of guardians, people, teachers, fiduciary ties, and people in positions of authority for rape is covered under The provisions of section 376 of the IPC. Given that the complainant was a trainee working for the accused, the accused satisfies all of the requirements, including having a teacher and being trustworthy, domineering, and authoritative. The act was merely a preparation or attempt instead of a commission, according to Section 511 of the IPC, which deals with penalties for attempted rape offences. The defendant acknowledged the occurrence but claimed it was only a planning or effort.
The court contends the action taken after planning and attempting would fall under the category of contested facts. The evidence pertaining to planning and attempt would include the chargesheet materials, including CCTV video and voice samples. According to the court, it is prohibited by Section 482 CrPC from going into great detail about what happened following the purpose, preparation, and endeavour to grant the motion for quashing. The court made the argument that interfering under Section 482, CrPC at the chargesheet filing stage would be inconsistent with Supreme Court precedents that instruct High Courts not to intervene if the matter is clouded by significantly contested questions of fact. The motion for quashed was thus denied.
CASE NAME – Rajesh KSN v. State, Criminal Petition No. 10550 of 2022