Back to Bengaluru

High Court rejects plea of woman accused of filming husband raping employee

High Court rejects plea of woman accused of filming husband raping employee

The Karnataka High Court in Bengaluru has rejected a petition to quash criminal proceedings against a woman, Jayanti G, who is accused of filming her husband allegedly raping a female employee and later sharing the video with the victim's family.

Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled that the material collected during the investigation disclosed a prima facie case against the accused, meaning she must stand trial. The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking to quash the case registered against her under Sections 64(1), 68, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alongside Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

According to the prosecution, the complainant was employed as a Senior Manager at Arya Gold Company, which is owned by the petitioner's husband. The husband allegedly sexually assaulted the complainant using deception, coercion, and manipulation.

The complaint states that the abuse began after the complainant suffered a financial loss to the company. Specifically, Rs 7.8 lakh was transferred to a subscriber named Yogesh for the purchase of gold ornaments hypothecated with Muthoot Finance. After the subscriber became untraceable, the complainant was allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation.

Rejecting the plea to quash the proceedings, the High Court observed that the complaint, charge sheet, and victim's statements consistently attributed an active role to Jayanti G. The records indicated that she allegedly transmitted the compromising video material to the complainant's husband and relatives.

Justice Nagaprasanna also clarified the legal scope of Section 67 of the IT Act, ruling that the provision should not be narrowly construed to apply only to explicit sexual acts. The Court stated that the legislative intent is to prevent the electronic publication or transmission of obscene material used to exploit individuals, and that the expression "sexually explicit" must be interpreted in this broader context.

Share