Karnataka High Court quashes charges against Kodagu homestay owner in U.S. national rape case

The High Court of Karnataka has quashed criminal proceedings against the owner of a homestay in Kodagu, who was accused of failing to report to the police the alleged rape of a US national at his property in April 2026 and not maintaining registration form about the foreign national’s stay.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing the petition filed by the owner challenging the charge sheet filed against him under Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS) for intentional omission to give information, and under Sections 7 read with 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, for failing to register the foreign guest’s stay.

However, noticing that he was booked under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which was repealed in its entirety on September 1, 2025, and was replaced by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, the Court said “criminality cannot be conjured out of a statutory provision which had ceased to exist.” The alleged incident occurred on April 12, 2026, more than seven months after the repeal of the 1946 Act, the Court pointed out.

While referring to Section 33 [public to give information of certain offences] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which enumerates offences that the public is duty-bound to report, the Court noted that sexual offences have conspicuously been absent from this list across six successive criminal procedure codes since 1861.

The Court found that the petitioner, a private citizen, was under no statutory obligation to report the alleged sexual assault, distinguishing the case from statutes like the Protection of Children from Sexual Offices (POCSO), which expressly create such a duty on any one who has the knowledge of the commission of such offences against children.

“Morality may expect a citizen to speak; criminal law can punish his silence only when the statute commands him to speak. A moral expectation cannot, by prosecutorial alchemy, be converted into a penal obligation,” the Court said while pointing out that “the petitioner cannot be made to stand trial for failing to discharge a duty, which the law never cast upon him”.

It was also pointed out to the Court that in her oral complaint, the US national had clearly stated that she had not informed the petitioner-owner or his family members about the alleged incident of rape by 45-year-old Vrijesh Kumar, a cook-cum-housekeeper of the homestay, after being given a sedated fruit juice upon reaching the homestay on April 12 afternoon.

Curiously, the complainant US national, through a videocall to the police, on May 30 made a new allegation, which she had neither made in her complaint or statement before the magistrate. In her videocall, she claimed that the driver of the taxi, which she herself had booked to reach the homestay from Bengaluru through an online app in April, had sexually assaulted her in the guise of giving her a body massage in the homestay.

She alleged that soon after reaching the homestay, the taxi driver, Thejas Kumar V, offered to give her an Ayurvedic massage. She agreed and during the massage he allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Subsequently, the cook-cum-housekeeper of the homestay also sexually assaulted her. Following the new allegations, the police arrested the taxi driver on June 2 and a chargesheet was filed against the homestay owner, cook, and taxi driver on June 7.