The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man who was accused of demanding sexual favours from a woman in exchange for financial assistance. The Court found that the complainant's subsequent statement to the police did not support the essential allegations on which the chargesheet was based.
Background
The case arose from a complaint filed on June 4, 2025, by a woman who had approached the petitioner, Hafeez Khasim, for financial assistance. According to the original complaint, a dispute developed over repayment of the money.
The woman alleged that during a meeting at Khasim's residence on April 21, 2025, he sought sexual favours by offering money and other benefits. She also alleged that he threatened her.
However, in a further statement recorded on June 6, 2025, she stated that she had visited his house to resolve the financial dispute. She referred to him looking at her inappropriately but denied making allegations of a demand for sexual favours. The complainant and the State did not dispute the contents of this subsequent statement.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj examined whether the allegations and investigation material disclosed the essential requirements of Section 75(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with demands or requests for sexual favours.
The Court observed:
"It is significant that the said further statement is not merely silent with regard to the demand for sexual favours. Respondent No.2 has specifically disowned having made such an allegation against the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP do not dispute the recording or contents of the said statement."
The Court further clarified:
"The allegation of the petitioner having looked at respondent No.2 in an inappropriate manner cannot, by itself, be treated as a demand or request for sexual favours within the meaning of Section 75(1)(ii) of the BNS."
Examining the criminal intimidation charge under Section 351, the Court noted that the subsequent statement contained no specific allegation of a threat intended to cause alarm or compel the woman to act in a particular manner.
It also clarified that inconsistencies between an original complaint and a subsequent statement do not automatically justify quashing criminal proceedings. However, the circumstances of this case were different because the essential allegations had been specifically disowned and their denial was undisputed.
The High Court held that the investigation material did not establish the essential ingredients of either offence.
Accordingly, it allowed the criminal petition and quashed the chargesheet and consequential proceedings against Hafeez Khasim under Sections 75(1)(ii) and 351(2) of the BNS.
Case Details
Case Title: Hafeez Khasim v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 14967 of 2025
Judge: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Decision Date: 30 October 2026
