Also Read - Delhi High Court Refuses Bail to Alleged Indian Mujahideen Operative in 2008 Serial Bomb Blast Case

Chemmanur was charged under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which pertains to sexual harassment, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, which deals with the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. Following the registration of the case, he was arrested on January 8, 2025, and remanded to judicial custody. The High Court subsequently granted him bail on January 14, 2025. The bench, however, expressed concern over his continued presence on bail despite the grant, issuing a warning that the bail could be cancelled if the conditions were not adhered to.

The petition to quash the proceedings was filed by Advocate M.R. Dhanil on behalf of Chemmanur. The de facto complainant is represented by Advocates Zakeer Hussain, K.A. Sanjeetha, and Lovewin Vinu. The case bears the number Crl.MC 977/2026 and is titled C.D. Boby @ Dr. Boby Chemmanur v. State of Kerala.

Also Read - Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking SIT Probe After Woman Alleged to be Murdered Found Alive

In its reasoning, the High Court emphasized that, at this interim stage, it is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the defence. The stay is purely procedural, intended to ensure that any settlement reached between the parties is genuine and not collusive. The court highlighted the importance of safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice process while also recognising the liberty of the parties to resolve disputes amicably.

The order does not preclude the prosecution from proceeding with the case should the verification reveal that the settlement is not bona fide. The bench made it clear that the stay is subject to review and may be vacated or modified based on the outcome of the prosecutor’s inquiry.

Also Read - Punjab and Haryana High Court Reduces Sentence After Finding Appellant Was Juvenile at Time of Offence

Legal observers note that the decision underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach when faced with claims of settlement in criminal matters, particularly those involving allegations of sexual harassment. By directing the Public Prosecutor to scrutinise the affidavit, the court seeks to balance the interests of the complainant, the accused, and the broader public interest in prosecuting offences under special statutes.

The matter will return before the High Court on the scheduled date for further directions, contingent upon the report of the Public Prosecutor regarding the authenticity of the settlement.

Also Read - Plea filed in Karnataka High Court challenges parallel Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls for Greater Bengaluru