Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Anil Rohan Menezes – Petitioner
versus
State of Karnataka – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 6103 of 2026
Decided on 1.9.2026
Important Points
(1) Sexual harassment – Accidental or unintended exposure, bereft of sexual intent and not directed towards the woman, cannot, merely because it is witnessed by a woman, be metamorphosed into offence of sexual harassment – Exposure of body and intentional exposure of body to a woman for a sexual purpose are not synonymous.
(2) Criminal law cannot be permitted to travel on conjecture from exposure to intention, and from intention to sexual intent, when foundational facts necessary to sustain that journey are themselves absent.
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA : S.75(2)
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 75(2) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Sexual harassment (Obscene act) – Charge-sheet – For conduct of kind alleged to enter precincts of offence, act cannot be viewed in isolation from circumstances attending it – There must be conduct carrying necessary sexual overtone and requisite mens rea – Accidental or unintended exposure, bereft of sexual intent and not directed towards the woman, cannot, merely because it is witnessed by a woman, be metamorphosed into offence of sexual harassment – Exposure of body and intentional exposure of body to a woman for a sexual purpose are not synonymous – Criminal law punishes the latter when statutory ingredients are fulfilled; it cannot mechanically criminalise former merely because circumstances unfortunately bring it within sight of another. (Paras 12, 13 and 15)
(B) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 75(2) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Obscene act – Charge-sheet – Petitioner was answering nature’s call – Explanation offered is that he had searched for a public toilet and, finding none in vicinity, was compelled by exigency of nature to relieve himself at place in question – A person answering nature’s call and a woman inadvertently coming within his line of sight at that precise moment cannot, without anything more, satisfy ingredients of offence alleged under Section 75(2) of BNS – Mere fact that complainant happened to see private part of petitioner cannot supply an ingredient which statute itself requires – Criminal law cannot be permitted to travel on conjecture from exposure to intention, and from intention to sexual intent, when foundational facts necessary to sustain that journey are themselves absent – Every unpleasant, embarrassing or socially unacceptable circumstance cannot, on that score alone, be brought within contours of a penal provision – Permitting petitioner to undergo rigmarole of criminal trial on the allegations would amount to permitting process of law itself to become punishment – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Result: Criminal Petition allowed.
Counsel for the Parties
For the Petitioner:Sri. Abhilash H.S, Advocate.
For the RespondentsNo.1: Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP
For the RespondentsNo.2:Smt. Swati Gopalkrishna, Advocate
ORDER (ORAL)
The petitioner is before the Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.14887/2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘the BNS’ for short), pending on the file of 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. Heard Sri. Abhilash H.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - accused; Sri. K Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 - State and Smt. Swati Gopalkrishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - complainant
3. The facts adumbrated are as follows:
3.1. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. The genesis of the lis lies in a complaint registered on 24-01-2026, which comes to be transformed into Crime No.35 of 2026 for the offence punishable under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’ for short). The allegation, shorn of embellishment, is that the petitioner exposed his private part at a public place near Hebbal at a time when the complainant was walking by. This solitary incident becomes the fulcrum around which the entire crime revolves.
3.2. The Police conduct investigation and, on its culmination, lay a charge sheet against the petitioner. It is the filing of the charge sheet and the consequential continuation of criminal proceedings that have driven the petitioner to the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
Submissions:
Petitoner:
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek to place an altogether different complexion upon the incident. He would submit that, after alighting from a bus, the petitioner was in urgent need of a restroom and frantically searched for one in the vicinity. Finding none, and being unable to resist nature’s call any longer, the petitioner sought to relieve himself by the side of the street. At that precise moment, the complainant happened to walk past the place. The petitioner, unaware of her presence, suddenly turned around and, in that fleeting moment, the complainant happened to see his private part. This accidental circumstance, according to the learned counsel, has been given the colour of a criminal act and has ultimately snowballed into the impugned prosecution.
4.1. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that an accidental exposure, bereft of any sexual overture, intent or conduct directed towards the complainant, cannot be metamorphosed into an offence merely because the complainant happened to witness it. He would submit that the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 75(2) of the BNS—corresponding to Section 354A of the erstwhile the IPC—are not merely absent, but are not discernible even in their remotest semblance from the complaint or the material collected during investigation.
Complainant:
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - complainant would however contend that the petitioner was not only answering the call of nature, but was making some gestures, as well. In that light, the learned counsel submits that this is a matter where it must be permitted to be tried and for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial, as to what was he doing at that point in time.
State:
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader also would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant in seeking dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
Consideration:
8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. They would not require any iteration. The entire issue gets triggered from the registration of the complaint. The gist of the complaint as found in column No.10 reads as follows:—
(Matter in other language)
(Emphasis added)
The complaint itself narrates that the complainant, after alighting from a bus, was proceeding towards the nearby railway track. At that point in time, the petitioner, without no
