The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a rape FIR filed against a Mangaluru-based advocate by a law student interning at his office at the time. The advocate had moved the high court to get the sections relating to rape dismissed, saying that no actual commission of the act had occurred. Quashing the accused’s petition, a single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said on Tuesday, “The irresistible conclusion is that there is no warrant of interference at the hands of this court at this juncture, to intervene, interdict or obliterate those allegations of rape, preparation and attempt for an offence against the petitioner, as any interference by this court would be rendering plaudits to the wanton lust and vicious appetite of the petitioner.” The court added, “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.” According to the student, she was a second-year law student when she obtained an internship in August 2021 at the law firm in question based on the recommendation of one of her classmates. The accused advocate allegedly began chatting with her via WhatsApp. Later on, she said, he started sending her her photographs and CCTV footage of her and also started passing comments about her clothing. On September 25, she alleged, he grabbed her and tried to undress her, at which point she managed to push him and run away. He allegedly also issued a death threat. After the FIR was filed and the police carried out an investigation, the advocate was booked under sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to charges of rape, including rape committed by a person in a position of authority, and assault with intent to outrage modesty. The counsel for the petitioner argued that while the petitioner might be liable under sections relating to outraging modesty, rape could not be a valid section since no actual commission of the act had occurred. The victim’s counsel argued that it was a thin line between preparation and actual attempt of rape and thus it would become a question of fact and hence the case should not be quashed. The bench upon examining the facts said, “It is a matter of evidence, in a full blown trial for the petitioner to come out clean. The concerned court is yet to frame charges and there is no reason to believe that the court would not apply its mind while framing charges. Therefore, none of the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner merit any acceptance.” The bench further noted that these observations were only with regard to the present petition and would have no bearing on the trial proceedings.
