BENGALURU: In a significant ruling emphasizing the sanctity of women's privacy in public commercial spaces, the Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a voyeurism case against a 19-year-old man accused of attempting to photograph a woman in a trial room.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while presiding over the matter, delivered a stern message to the accused and the public at large, observing that if such incidents are treated lightly, no woman would feel safe in a clothing store.

The case dates back to an incident in 2024 at a well-known textile shop in Bengaluru’s Jayanagar area. A 28-year-old woman had visited the store to purchase clothes. After selecting a few items, she entered the trial room to check the fit.

According to the prosecution, while the woman was changing, she noticed a small, suspicious gap in the trial room door. Upon further investigation, it was alleged that the accused, Faisal Ulla Sharif, who was tasked with managing the shop floor, was using his mobile phone to surreptitiously take photos of the woman through that gap.

The woman immediately raised an alarm, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent police investigation.

The accused was booked under Section 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). For those familiar with the older legal framework, Section 77 of the BNS replaces the erstwhile Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines and punishes the offence of "Voyeurism."

Under Section 77, voyeurism is defined as the act of a man watching or capturing the image of a woman engaging in a "private act" in circumstances where she would usually expect not to be observed. The law explicitly includes changing rooms and trial rooms as places where a "reasonable expectation of privacy" exists.

"Such People Should Be Taught a Lesson"

The accused moved the High Court seeking to quash the FIR under the court's inherent powers (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC, now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita or BNSS). His legal counsel argued that the allegations were baseless and pointed out that the accused was only 19 years old at the time of the incident. The defense further urged the court to examine the "panchnama" (investigation report), suggesting that the evidence did not support the claims.

However, Justice Nagaprasanna was not convinced. The Bench highlighted the gravity of the invasion of privacy, stating:

"The woman gets into a trial room and you shoot! How can any clothes store be safe for a woman if you go on shooting through the curtains? This is a case of voyeurism. We will not spare such people."

Addressing the defense's plea that the accused might be acquitted eventually, the Judge remarked, "You may get acquitted, but I will not entertain this plea to quash. Such people should be taught a lesson."

The Court noted that in digital-age crimes, evidence like photos can be deleted in seconds once the victim steps out of the room, making a full trial necessary to uncover the truth rather than quashing the case at a preliminary stage.

The BNS has brought a sharper focus on crimes against women. Here is what the law says about the charges faced by the accused:

Definition: Capturing or sharing images of a woman in a private act without consent.
Punishment: For a first-time offender, the law prescribes a jail term of 1 to 3 years along with a fine.
Repeat Offenders: For subsequent convictions, the punishment increases significantly to a minimum of 3 years, which can extend up to 7 years.
Trial Nature: The offence is "cognizable," meaning police can arrest without a warrant, and it is "bailable" for the first offence but becomes "non-bailable" for repeat offenders.

The ruling reinforces a settled legal principle: High Courts are generally hesitant to quash an FIR once a chargesheet has already been filed and the investigation reveals a prima facie (at first sight) case.

Justice Nagaprasanna made it clear that the accused has the right to seek a "discharge" from the trial court if he believes the evidence is weak, but the High Court would not use its special powers to stop the legal process for such a sensitive matter.

The Court eventually allowed the petitioner to withdraw his petition, leaving him to face the trial in the lower court in Bengaluru.

This observation by the Karnataka High Court serves as a vital reminder to establishment owners. Shopkeepers and mall managements have a legal and moral responsibility to ensure that trial rooms are secure, free of hidden cameras, and designed without gaps that compromise a customer’s dignity.

As the judge poignantly asked during the hearing: "If people go on keeping phones in the trial room, who is safe?"

The case continues before the trial court, where the evidence—including the digital trail and witness statements—will determine the final outcome.

Case Title: Faisal Ulla Sharif @ Faisal Ulla Shariff v. State of Karnataka

Bench: Justice M Nagaprasanna