Logo

Allegations of Sharing Sexually Explicit Videos Must Be Tested at Trial, Quashing Plea Rejected: Karnataka HC

CB News Desk

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a woman accused of circulating explicit videos, holding that the allegations raise triable issues that must be decided during trial. - Jayanthi G. v. State of Karnataka & Another

Allegations of Sharing Sexually Explicit Videos Must Be Tested at Trial, Quashing Plea Rejected: Karnataka HC
Join Telegram

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a woman accused of circulating sexually explicit videos allegedly involving the complainant and the woman's husband. Holding that the allegations disclose a prima facie case requiring a full-fledged trial, Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled that the High Court cannot examine disputed facts or conduct a "mini trial" while exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Background of the Case

The petition was filed by Jayanthi G., who sought quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against her in connection with Crime No. 73/2025 registered by Rajajinagar Police Station, Bengaluru.

According to the prosecution, the complainant worked as a Senior Manager at Arya Gold Company, owned by Jayanthi's husband. The complaint alleges that after a financial dispute involving ₹7.80 lakh, the complainant was subjected to repeated sexual assault by the company's proprietor. It was further alleged that intimate videos were recorded and later circulated by Jayanthi to the complainant's husband and relatives through electronic means. Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against both accused.

Jayanthi argued that there was no material connecting her with the alleged transmission of the videos and contended that even forensic examination of the seized mobile phone did not reveal any incriminating digital content.

Court's Observations

Justice M. Nagaprasanna examined the complaint, the charge sheet, and the complainant's statement recorded before the Magistrate and found that the prosecution materials specifically attributed a role to the petitioner in allegedly transmitting the explicit material.

Rejecting the argument that no case was made out against her, the Court observed:

“A careful perusal of the complaint, the summary of the charge sheet, the statement of the victim, and the statement recorded before the learned Magistrate unmistakably discloses allegations attributing an active role to the petitioner, at the very least, in the transmission of the compromising material to the complainant’s husband and relatives.”

The Court further held that whether the allegations ultimately stand proved is a matter to be examined during trial and not in proceedings seeking quashing.

On the offences under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, the Court noted that the legislative intent is to prevent exploitation through electronic publication or transmission of obscene or sexually explicit material. It held that the petitioner's objections regarding the applicability of these provisions involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be decided at this preliminary stage.

High Court Declines to Conduct 'Mini Trial'

The Bench relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty, CBI v. Aryan Singh, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya), reiterating that courts exercising inherent jurisdiction should not assess the credibility of evidence or weigh disputed facts.

The Court observed:

“The Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned that quashing of criminal proceedings is an exception and not the rule.”

It emphasized that where investigation has produced material supporting the prosecution case, the trial court must evaluate that evidence after recording testimony rather than the High Court deciding factual disputes at the threshold.

Decision

Finding that the allegations and the material collected during investigation disclose triable issues, the Karnataka High Court dismissed Jayanthi G.'s petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

The Court clarified that its observations are confined only to deciding the quashing petition and shall not influence the trial court, which must independently assess the evidence during trial.

Case Details

Case Title: Jayanthi G. v. State of Karnataka & Another

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 2163 of 2026

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Decision Date: June 9, 2026

Recommended Posts