The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday refused to quash the chargesheet filed against a 45-year-old advocate from Mangaluru for allegedly raping a 21-year-old student of second-year law course, who was working as an intern in his office during 2021.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing the petition filed by Rajesh K.S.N. of Mangaluru. The police had filed the chargesheet against him for a series of offences under the Indian Penal Code.
The offences include outraging the modesty of the victim, sexual harassment, criminal force with an intent to disrobe her, voyeurism, stalking, criminal intimidation, extortion, destruction of evidence, giving false information on the incident, and raping the victim being her teacher, a person in a position of trust or authority and dominance on her, and having a fiduciary relationship with her.
Though the petitioner had admitted the incident, it was contended on his behalf that the complaint contains ingredients only for the allegations of outraging the modesty of the woman and related offences under Section 354 of the IPC and not for attracting the charges of either rape or even attempt to rape her. Though the petitioner had initially questioned the entire chargesheet, later the challenge was restricted to invoking charges of rape and attempt to rape.
On analysing various judgments of the apex court on preparation and attempt to commit rape, Justice Nagaprasanna said that whether the act of the petitioner amount to “preparation or attempt” to commit rape is required to be ascertained from the available evidences during a trial.
“...any interference by this court at this stage would be rendering plaudits to the wanton lust and vicious appetite of the petitioner. If a naive student of law, enters the office of an advocate, as an intern; in turn gets to face these horrendous acts, it would have a chilling effect on the entire practice and profession,” the court observed while stating that the accused-advocate has to come out clean in a full blown trial.
However, the court clarified that observations made in this order were limited to deciding the petition and they would not have any influence on the criminal proceedings against him.
