Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the prosecution proceedings against an astrologer and the husband of a woman who alleged that her modesty was outraged under the pretext of performing a puja. The case, titled Deepa Darshan H P & Anr v. Police Inspector & Anr (Criminal Petition No. 2585 of 2021), involves serious allegations under Sections 498A, 354, 354A, and 508 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioners’ Argument:

The petitioners, Deepa Darshan H P and Mohandas @ Shivaramu, sought to quash the criminal proceedings against them. Mohandas argued that the complainant had previously filed a complaint under Section 498A in 2018, and therefore, filing another complaint in 2019 for a similar offense was impermissible. He further contended that, since the complainant had been living separately since 2018 and a dissolution of marriage petition was pending, the basis for the new complaint was flawed. The petitioners also claimed that the complaint was an abuse of process and that the allegations lacked sufficient supporting evidence.

Complainant’s Argument:

The complainant’s counsel countered that the previous complaint under Section 498A was distinct from the current allegations. The complainant alleged that the astrologer, Deepa Darshan H P, inappropriately touched her while pretending to perform a puja to rectify her kundali. The husband, who was present, neither protested nor intervened, thereby supporting the astrologer’s actions. The counsel argued that these new allegations were serious and warranted legal scrutiny, as they involved both sexual assault and domestic cruelty.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice M.G. Uma of the Karnataka High Court addressed the issues raised by both sides and made a decisive ruling. The Court observed that the complainant had provided specific allegations against both accused: the astrologer (accused No. 2) and the husband (accused No. 1). According to the complainant, the husband had taken her to the astrologer, who then committed the alleged offenses. The husband’s warning to the complainant to remain silent about the incident was also noted as contributing to the accusations.

The Court emphasized that, under Section 498A of the IPC, cruelty allegations could be substantiated even with a subsequent complaint if they relate to new or continuing acts of cruelty. Additionally, the specific allegations against the astrologer, such as inappropriate touching, fell under Sections 354 and 354A, which address outraging a woman’s modesty and sexual harassment. The Court found the allegations serious enough to warrant a full trial.

Conclusion:

Justice Uma rejected the petitioners’ request to quash the proceedings, ruling that the nature and seriousness of the allegations required continued legal action. The Court stated that there was no basis to dismiss the charges prematurely and that both the astrologer and the husband should face the legal process to address the claims made by the complainant.