Grooving Neck While Listening To Music Is Not Stalking: Bombay High Court

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The man argued that there was a delay in filing the FIR. On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the testimony of the victim and taxi drivers demonstrated the man's reckless behavior

The Bombay High Court has recently held that grooving one's neck while listening to music does not constitute the offence of stalking under the Indian Penal Code.

A single judge bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Milind Jadhav, was hearing an appeal filed by a man who was booked for stalking, rash and negligent driving, and causing hurt by endangering life.

The prosecution alleged that in 2017, the victim was riding a two-wheeler outside Nerul Railway Station when the man was allegedly grooving his neck while listening to music on his motorcycle next to the victim.

The victim stated that she was continuously threatened with being overtaken, which caused her to lose her balance and sustain injuries to her elbow and shoulders.

The trial court convicted the man for all three offences and sentenced him to 3 months' imprisonment for stalking and rash driving, and 3 years for endangering life.

The district court, however, reduced the 3-year sentence to 3 months. The man then approached the High Court, challenging the district court's order.

The man argued that there was a delay in filing the FIR. On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the testimony of the victim and taxi drivers demonstrated the man's reckless behavior.

After hearing both sides, the bench dropped the stalking charges against the man but upheld the charges of rash and negligent driving.

"Whether such gesture can be attributed to the act of Applicant trying to interact, foster and draw attention of the Complainant - PW-1 is not proved. Such an action on the part of Applicant in my opinion does not fall into any one of the attributes or ingredients of the offence of stalking as enumerated under Section 354D," the order reads. 

The bench noted that the 36 day period already undergone by the man was sufficient and ordered his release, considering that he was the sole breadwinner of his family.

Case title: Rakesh Matasharan Shukla vs State of Maharashtra