Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Veerabhadra Swamy S. , S/o. Late Shivanna – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Mahilla Police Station, Shivamogga, Rep. By Its State Public Prosecutor, DR. Ambedkar Veedhi – Respondent
ORDER :
(M. Nagaprasanna, J.) :
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.82/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354C, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Jayaraj D.S., appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.B.N.Jagadeesh, appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
The second respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner accused alleging that the accused with intentions mala fide and motives ulterior placed a mobile phone inside the electric switch board situated in the hall of the premises belonging to the complainant and captured her private images and began to share the same with the in-laws of her son. This becomes the fulcrum of the complaint so registered on 09.01.2021. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.5/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 354C and 506 of IPC.
4. The police conduct investigation and filed a charge sheet in charge sheet No.70/2022 against the petitioner and the matter is now pending. Charge sheet is f
The court affirmed that voyeurism under IPC Section 354C requires a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the case's facts warranted a trial.
Voyeurism allegations are sufficient to proceed to trial, while stalking charges are quashed due to lack of evidence; High Court's discretion to quash proceedings is limited when serious factual disp....
Insufficient evidence for voyeurism and related charges leads to quashing of criminal proceedings.
The court quashed charges of voyeurism under Section 354C due to lack of privacy but allowed prosecution for insulting modesty under Section 509 of the IPC.
The act of glancing at a minor outside her house does not constitute voyeurism under IPC; no privacy or sexual intent was proven.
The court emphasized that charges must be framed with precision, highlighting the absence of essential elements for IPC Section 354 and the need to consider dissemination under Section 354-C and IT A....
(1) Quashment proceeding – To exercise inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is not the rule but it is an exception which can be applied only if it appears to Court that miscarriage of justice w....
Consent and dissemination are crucial factors in determining liability under Section 354-C of IPC.
The judgment establishes that a conviction under Section 354C IPC requires direct evidence of the dissemination of indecent images, and that circumstantial evidence alone is insufficient to meet the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
