Just sending profane messages does not amount to stalking: Karnataka HC

Bengaluru: Merely sending or exchanging messages — even if they contain profanity — would not amount to stalking, the High Court of Karnataka ruled recently. 

The court quashed proceedings under IPC Section 354D against a man from Uttar Pradesh, but refused to quash the proceedings for offences under the Atrocities Act, the Information Technology Act and IPC sections related to voyeurism and criminal intimidation. 

The petitioner had met the complainant, currently a resident of Bengaluru, in Delhi while attending the UPSC coaching class. While the petitioner claimed that they got married, the complainant disputed it. 

In October 2023, the woman filed a complaint at the Chandra Layout police station in Bengaluru, stating that the petitioner had recorded all her private videos and started blackmailing her, saying he would leak them on social media. 

While filing the charge sheet, the police dropped IPC sections related to rape (376) and cheating (420). However, IPC sections 354C (voyeurism), 354D (stalking), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (word, gesture to insult the modesty); Section 66E (violation of privacy) of the Information Technology Act; and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act were retained. 

The petition challenged the charge sheet, claiming he had a consensual physical relationship with the complainant since July 2023, up to which point in time they were on WhatsApp. He claimed to have moved to Prayagraj after their relationship turned sour. 

The court perused IPC Section 354D, which says any man who follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction or monitors the woman on the internet, email or electronic communication commits the offence of stalking. 

Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that some of the offences in the charge sheet were loosely laid against the petitioner while a few were appropriate. 

On voyeurism, the court said that the petitioner had shot videos of intimate moments, or even videos and the materials would meet the allegation. Insofar as Section 354D is concerned, the court said, "Merely sending messages between the two or exchange of messages which contained profanity would not amount to stalking. Therefore, the offence of stalking is loosely laid against the petitioner." 

The court further said: "The case at hand, as observed hereinabove, except the offence of stalking, revolves round seriously disputed questions of fact, which would require further proceedings before the concerned court. Therefore, I decline to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to obliterate the proceedings qua all offences except the offence under Section 354D — stalking, as permitting further trial qua the said offence would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of law."