Bengaluru: The high court has refused to quash proceedings against a teacher of a govt high school, Shikaripura, Shivamogga district, in relation to a criminal case registered by a guest teacher of the same school alleging repeated rape, criminal intimidation and other offences.The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings pending before JMFC, Shikaripura, registered for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(b), 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 323, 427, 504 and 506 of the IPC.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner used to call her inside the office room and sexually assaulted her. He also threatened to get her removed from work by complaining to the block education officer. He is said to have clicked her nude photographs, and by threatening to upload them on social media, he committed sexual intercourse several times. When it became unbearable, she filed a complaint. Challenging the same, the petitioner argued that the alleged acts were consensual in nature.However, after perusing the materials on record, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the threats to tarnish reputation and secure professional termination, if proven, unmistakably resonate with the language and spirit of these provisions.Section 376(2)(b) contemplates punishment where a public servant commits rape of a woman in his custody or subordinate sphere. The petitioner, being a teacher in a govt institution and the complainant functioning under his administrative influence, prima facie bring the allegations within the ambit of this provision.“Whether the statutory ingredients are ultimately established or not is a matter of trial. Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC punishes a person who commits rape upon a teacher or a person who has authority towards a woman. The position of the petitioner and the respondent-complainant would prima facie become the ingredients of Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC. The other is Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, which punishes a person who commits rape repeatedly on the same woman. The complaint and the summary of the chargesheet narrate this act against the petitioner. Thus, at this juncture, the complaint and the chargesheet cannot be said to be bereft of foundational substance,” the judge added.To extend the protective hand of this court in the face of such prima facie material would, in effect, trivialise the gravity of accusations and prematurely stifle the course of justice. The acts alleged, when viewed in their totality, do not depict a relationship of mutual volition, but one shadowed by dominance, fear and coercion. Whether these allegations withstand the rigours of trial is for the trial, the judge observed while dismissing the petition.
