1. Pontiff and trustee charged under multiple statutes for alleged sexual assault of minor devotee; proceedings sought to be quashed. (Para 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24778
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA
SRI ABHILASH K – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 71/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akshay S., Sandesh J. Chouta, Leela P. Devadiga
For the Respondents: Sandesh J. Chouta, Leela P. Devadiga, B.N. Jagadeesha, Shyamsundar S.U., Karthik N.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akshay S., Sandesh J. Chouta, Leela P. Devadiga
For the Respondents: Sandesh J. Chouta, Leela P. Devadiga, B.N. Jagadeesha, Shyamsundar S.U., Karthik N.
Inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging a complaint for sexual offenses, particularly when based primarily on the victim's statement without medical corroboration, can vitiate proceedings and justify quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as an abuse of the process of law.
Headnote:(A) Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 - Sections 3 and 7 - Applicability - The Act was designed to curb specific anti-national, secessionist, or terrorist activities within religious institutions and is not applicable to general criminal offenses, including sexual assault. (Para 10)
(B) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66E and 67A - Violation of privacy and transmission of sexually explicit material - For these offenses to be sustainable, there must be specific allegations or evidence of capturing or transmitting private images or sexually explicit material. In the absence of such evidence in the charge sheet, the charges are unsustainable. (Para 11)
(C) Arms Act, 1959 - Section 30 - Contravention of license or rule - A bald allegation of threatening with a firearm without evidence of specific contravention of license conditions is insufficient to sustain a charge under this section. (Para 12)
(D) IPC - Sections 376, 354A, 417, 342, 506, 34 and POCSO Act, 2012 - Sections 4, 6, 11(iv), 12 - Delay in lodging FIR - Inordinate and unexplained delay in filing a complaint (ranging from 5 to 7 years) for sexual offenses, where the proceedings rely primarily on the victim's statement without supporting medical evidence, may be regarded as an abuse of the process of law and a ground for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 13-17)
Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed in 2024 alleging sexual assault of a minor by a religious head and an associate, with incidents alleged to have occurred between 2017 and 2019. The accused were charged under multiple statutes, including the IPC, POCSO Act, IT Act, Arms Act, and the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act. The accused sought to quash the proceedings, citing extreme delay in reporting and a lack of evidence for the specific statutory charges.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the charges under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, IT Act, and Arms Act were loosely laid and unsustainable based on the record. Regarding the sexual assault charges, the court found the delay of 5 to 7 years to be unexplained and fatal to the prosecution's case, suggesting the complaint was an afterthought filed after the accused had initiated separate criminal proceedings against other parties.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings for sexual assault and other alleged offenses should be quashed given the inordinate delay in filing the complaint, and whether the specific charges under the IT Act, Arms Act, and Religious Institutions Act were legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: While delay in POCSO cases is not always fatal, an extreme and unexplained delay, especially when the complaint is filed years later and lacks independent medical corroboration, indicates that the proceedings are potentially frivolous or instituted to wreak vengeance, thereby constituting an abuse of the process of law. (Paras 14-17)
Result: Criminal Petition No.8786 of 2024 and Criminal Petition No.71 of 2025 are allowed; the proceedings in Spl.C.No.266 of 2024 stand quashed; Criminal Petition No.11726 of 2024 and Criminal Petition No.11808 of 2024 stand dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Accused argued unexplained delay and inapplicability of certain statutes; complainant argued sufficient evidence and gravity of offences. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Court held Religious Institutions Act inapplicable, IT Act and Arms Act offences not made out, and unexplained delay vitiated IPC and POCSO proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Unexplained delay in filing FIR for sexual offences can vitiate entire proceedings under IPC and POCSO. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
5. Is the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 applicable to religious institutions in Karnataka?
No, as held by coordinate bench, the Act is not applicable to Karnataka and was intended for specific anti-national activities. (Para 10 )
6. What constitutes an offence under Section 66E of the IT Act?
It requires intentional capturing, publishing or transmitting image of private area without consent; mere allegation without such act does not make out offence. (Para 11 )
7. What is required to establish an offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act?
Contravention of licence conditions or provisions; a bald allegation of showing a revolver without proof of licence contravention is insufficient. (Para 12 )
8. Does unexplained delay in lodging FIR for rape and POCSO offences justify quashing of proceedings?
Yes, if delay is not satisfactorily explained and the victim's testimony lacks sterling quality, proceedings can be quashed. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
9. Under Section 482 CrPC, can the court consider delay and attending circumstances to quash proceedings for sexual offences?
Yes, the court owes a duty to examine FIR closely and take into account overall circumstances, including delay, to prevent abuse of process. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11726 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.8786 OF 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION No.11808 OF 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION No.71 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11726 OF 2024 BETWEEN: XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX ... PETITIONER (BY SRI AKSHAY S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRINIVASA D.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI BALAMANJUNATHASWAMIJI S/O NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PEETADHYAKSHA OF SRI VIDYA CHOWDESHWARI MUTT, RESIDING AT SRI MUTT, HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE, BENACHAKALLU ROAD, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 123.
2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIYURUDURGA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SMT.LEELA P.DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (2)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND CANCEL THE BAIL ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC-1) AT TUMAKURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.796/2024 DATED 22.06.2024 IN GRANTING REGULAR BAIL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT / ACCUSED NO.1 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 376, 354A (i)(ii), 417, 342, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860, U/S 4 AND 6 OF POCSO Act, 2012 , U/S 66(E) AND 67(A) OF I.T. Act, 2000 , U/S 3(f) OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) ACT, 1988 AND U/S 30 OF THE ARMS ACT, 1959.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8786 OF 2024 BETWEEN SRI MANJUNATHA N., @
BALAMANJUNATHA SWAMIJI S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SRI VIDYA CHOWDESHWARI MUTT HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SMT.LEELA P.DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HULIYURUDURGA POLICE TUMAKURU REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R1; DR. SHYAMSUNDAR S.U., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.266/2024 FILED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT HULIYURDURGA POLICE, ARISING OUT OF CHARGE SHEET DATED 03.05.2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 4, 6, 11(iv) AND 12 OF POCSO Act, 2012 , SECTION 66(E) AND 67(A) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000, SECTION 376, 354(A)(1)(i), 354(A)(1)(ii), 417, 342, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC SECTION 3 OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) ACT, 1988 AND SECTION 30 OF ARMS ACT 1959.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11808 OF 2024 BETWEEN XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX ... PETITIONER (BY SRI AKSHAY S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRINIVASA D.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. ABHILASH K., S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS TRUSTEE OF SRI VIDYA CHOWDESHWARI TRUST (R)
RESIDING AT SRI MUTT, HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE , BENACHAKALLU ROAD, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU – 572 123.
2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIYURUDURGA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KARTHIK N., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R2 )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND CANCEL THE BAIL ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC-1) AT TUMAKURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.797/2024 DATED 22.06.2024, IN GRANTING REGULAR BAIL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 354-A(i)(ii), 342 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC IN CR.NO.50/2024 UNDER HULIDURGA POLICE STATION U/S.11(iv) AND 12 OF POCSO Act, 2012 AND UNDER SECTION 3(f) OF THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) ACT, 1988.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.71 OF 2025 BETWEEN:
SRI ABHILASH K., S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TRUSTEE OF SRI VIDYA CHOWDESHWARI MUTT, HANGARAHALLI, CHOWDANAKUPPE, TUM
