Husband Accused of Raping Employee, Wife of Filming It: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Case

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a woman accused of filming and sharing videos of her husband's alleged rape of a female employee, observing that the material on record prima facie indicates her active involvement in the case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna noted, "A careful perusal of the complaint, the summary of the charge sheet, the statement of the victim, and the statement recorded before the learned Magistrate unmistakably discloses allegations attributing an active role to the petitioner, at the very least, in the transmission of the compromising material to the complainant's husband and relatives."

The petitioner, Jayanthi G, had approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal case registered against her under Sections 64(1), 68 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act. ‘Placing Pen*s Over Vagi*a, Ejaculating Without Penetration Does Not Amount to Rape’: Chhattisgarh High Court.

According to the prosecution, the woman's husband, proprietor of Arya Gold Company, allegedly subjected a senior manager employed at the firm to repeated acts of s*xual assault through deceit, coercion and manipulation. The complaint further alleged that the petitioner recorded the incidents and later shared the videos. ‘Long-Term Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Treated As Rape’: Allahabad High Court.

The High Court observed that the complainant's statement was "elaborate, detailed, and left little room for ambiguity as to her version of events."

"It narrates, with painful specificity, the alleged acts of manipulation, coercion, s*xual exploitation, blackmail, and the eventual dissemination of private material that forms the substratum of the prosecution case. The statement also sheds light on the emotional, psychological, and social devastation allegedly suffered by the victim," the court said.

On the scope of Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, Justice Nagaprasanna observed, "In any case, when the intention of the legislature was to do away exploitation of women or children or any person in electronic form by publishing or transmitting any obscene material, the term 's*xually explicit', cannot be said to be not covering activity in respect of which the accusations are made."

Refusing to interfere at this stage, the High Court held that the case involves disputed questions of fact that can only be examined during a full-fledged trial.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated, "Inherent jurisdiction, though wide in amplitude, is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of cases where continuation of proceedings would amount to manifest injustice. Where serious triable issues arise and material collected during investigation prima facie supports the prosecution case, judicial interference at the threshold would be wholly impermissible."

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jun 28, 2026 08:50 AM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).