Fake Online Profiles to Defame Sister-in-Law: Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash Case Against Bengaluru Man

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a Bengaluru man accused of creating fake social media accounts in his sister-in-law’s name, allegedly portraying her as a call girl and posting defamatory remarks about her family.

The bench of Justice M.I. Arun dismissed a petition filed by accused Pramod Shivashankar, who sought to quash the proceedings pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. The case was initiated on a private complaint by his sister-in-law.

According to the complaint, the victim alleged that following disputes within the family, Pramod began harassing her online by creating fake social media accounts. One such account, purportedly in her name, allegedly described her as a “call girl looking for men,” while other anonymous accounts carried a series of insulting and derogatory posts about her and her family members. The posts, she said, were visible to the public, thereby causing widespread humiliation and mental distress.

Acting on the complaint, the trial court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (defamation) and Sections 66(C), 66(D), and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which deal with identity theft, cheating by impersonation using computer resources, and transmission of obscene material in electronic form.

After recording her sworn statement and considering the preliminary evidence, the Magistrate found sufficient grounds to proceed against Pramod and framed charges under the above provisions. Challenging this order, Pramod approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to have the case quashed.

He claimed innocence, asserting that he had never created any such accounts. He further argued that even if the contents of the complaint were accepted as true, they did not amount to the alleged offences under law.

However, the High Court was not persuaded. Justice Arun observed that the allegations, if proved, were “definitely defamatory in character". Court noted that creating a fake account impersonating another person and posting indecent material in a public domain could attract penal liability under both the IPC and the IT Act.

“The creation of a fake social media account in the name of the respondent does amount to an offence under Section 66C of the IT Act,” the judge observed, adding that the trial court’s decision to frame charges was justified given the prima facie evidence.

Finding no infirmity in the Magistrate’s order, the High Court dismissed Pramod’s petition, paving the way for the continuation of trial proceedings before the Bengaluru court.

Case Title: Pramod Shivashankar vs. Vaishnavi

Order Date: October 30, 2025

Bench: Justice M.I. Arun