The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a practising advocate accused of assaulting a woman and outraging her modesty, holding that the allegations and material on record did not establish the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 324 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Venkatesh Naik T passed the order on September 25, 2026, allowing a criminal petition challenging the proceedings pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Kushtagi, Koppal district.
Background
The case arose from an incident allegedly occurring on June 29, 2021. According to the prosecution, the complainant had engaged the petitioner, a practising advocate in Bengaluru, to represent her in a divorce case before the Family Court.
The prosecution alleged that the two subsequently developed an intimate relationship. During the COVID-19 lockdown, the woman allegedly visited the advocate's village and claimed to be his wife. A dispute reportedly followed, during which she accused him of abusing and assaulting her and threatening her.
Following her complaint, Hanumasagar Police registered a case and filed a chargesheet. The magistrate subsequently took cognizance of the alleged offences.
The advocate approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that the allegations were inconsistent and that the statutory requirements of Sections 324 and 354 IPC were not satisfied.
Examining the allegations under Section 324 IPC, which deals with voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons or means, the Court noted that the complaint did not allege the use of any dangerous weapon or means. It also examined the wound certificate, which indicated that no injuries had been recorded.
The Court observed:
"The perusal of Section 324 of IPC contemplates that if anybody causes hurt by dangerous weapons or means, then it amounts to Section 324 whereas in the instant case, there is no allegation that the accused assaulted with dangerous weapons or means."
On Section 354 IPC, which concerns assault or criminal force against a woman with the intention of outraging her modesty, the Court examined whether the allegations disclosed the necessary intention or knowledge.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra and Another, the High Court observed that the essential ingredients of the offence had to be established. It found no allegation indicating the requisite sexual intent in the case before it.
The Court also considered the complainant's further statement recorded during the investigation. According to the order, she had stated that the petitioner had neither assaulted her nor committed an act outraging her modesty.
The Court held that continuing the proceedings in these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Allowing the criminal petition, the Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 415/2022 arising out of Crime No. 70/2021 of Hanumasagar Police Station, insofar as they concerned the petitioner and the alleged offences under Sections 324 and 354 IPC.
