Mere Sending Messages with Profanity Is Not Stalking: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the mere act of sending abusive or foul messages to a woman does not, by itself, amount to the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by a 30-year-old UPSC aspirant from Uttar Pradesh, who had sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him by a co-aspirant he had met during coaching classes in Delhi.
The man and the woman first came into contact in January 2022. Their initial academic interaction eventually developed into a personal relationship, with the man claiming that the two got married on November 10, 2023. The woman, however, later alleged that she was coerced into the marriage and filed a separate FIR in Prayagraj, accusing the man and his family of forcing her to consent at the registrar’s office. The Allahabad High Court has stayed the proceedings in that case.
Meanwhile, the relationship between the two deteriorated, leading to the current case registered in Bengaluru, where the woman accused the man of recording intimate videos on the false promise of marriage and using them to harass and threaten her. She filed a complaint at Chandra Layout Police Station in Bengaluru, and the case was registered under various sections of the IPC, the Information Technology Act, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Among the offences included in the chargesheet was Section 354D (stalking), which the man sought to contest.
While analysing the ingredients of stalking under Section 354D, court noted that any man who follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication commits the offence of stalking.
Therefore, court held that in the present case, isolated acts of abuse or sending offensive messages could not alone sustain a stalking charge.
Further, it noted that a few of the offences were loosely laid against the man and a few were appropriately.
Therefoer, while the court refused to quash the entire proceedings, citing sufficient prima facie material to proceed with the trial on other charges, including voyeurism (Section 354C), criminal intimidation (Section 506), insult to modesty (Section 509), and violation of privacy under Section 66E of the IT Act and also allowed the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act to remain, it quashed the case only in respect of offence alleged under Section 354D of the IPC.
Case Title: Abhishek Mishra vs State of Karnataka and Anr
Download order here