It would be most pertinent to note that in a significant move, the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Abhishek Mishra vs State of Karnataka & Anr in Criminal Petition No. 8596 of 2024 that was reserved on 25.06.2025 and then finally pronounced on 08.07.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that merely sending text messages containing foul language does not constitute the offence of stalking under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It must be noted here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice M. Nagaprasanna who authored this notable and laudable judgment held so while quashing the offence of stalking that had been levelled against a man named Abhishek Mishra from Uttar Pradesh. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, persuasive, pertinent and plain yet powerful judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice M. Nagaprasanna of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The petitioner/sole accused is before this Court calling in question entire proceedings in Special C.No.1029 of 2024 pending before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore, arising out of crime in Crime No.471 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 354-C, 354-D, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that:
Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The 2nd respondent is the complainant and the petitioner is the accused. The complainant and the accused met in January 2022 when the petitioner was undergoing coaching for the UPSC examination and was stationed at Delhi. The complainant is said to be acquainted with the petitioner’s sister. The complainant was also pursuing her UPSC examination and the averment in the petition is that, in the garb of exchange of notes for study to the UPSC examination, the petitioner and the complainant get in touch with each other with exchange of messages. On 12-07-2023, the petitioner is said to have met the complainant in Delhi, after which the complainant also moves to the same coaching class and further with the assistance of the petitioner gets a paying guest accommodation.
The friendship between the two blossomed into relationship and it is the case of the petitioner that the two got married, but the case of the complainant is otherwise. However, the fact remains that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant turned irrevocably sore. It is then the complainant registers a complaint before the Chandra Layout Police Station on 19-10-2023 making several allegations against the petitioner that, on the promise of marriage the petitioner had recorded all private videos of the complainant and had begun to blackmail that he would broadcast the same in all social media. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.471 of 2023 for several offences of the IPC, Information Technology Act and in the light of the fact that the complainant is belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the provisions of the Act was also invoked. The Police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet dropping certain provisions under the Act and adding a few on several other offences. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the present petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.”
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 4 enunciating that:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had consensual physical relationship since July 2023 after their first meeting in July, up to which point in time they were still on WhatsApp. When the relationship turned sore, petitioner travels to Prayagraj and at that time, the 2nd respondent registers a complaint before the jurisdictional Police and on 02-11-2023 tenders a statement before the Police making allegations of rape. The Police file a requisition to include the offence of commission of rape on promise of marriage.
Talks of settlement are initiated by the members of the families of both the parties and on 10-11-2023 the marriage is said to be registered. On 14-12-2023 the complainant registers another crime against all the family members that she was forced at the marriage Registrar’s office to give her consent to marriage. This becomes a crime at Prayaraj in Crime No.600 of 2023 for several offences. The Allahabad High Court has stayed all further proceedings in the crime registered at Prayagraj. The learned counsel would submit that the entire present proceedings right from the complaint till filing of the charge sheet is gross abuse of the process of law.”
Briefly stated, the gist of para 9 is that:
Section 354-C deals with voyeurism. The allegation against a man who watches or captures image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed. Section 354-D deals with stalking. 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 offence of stalking. The other offences are Section 504 and 506 of the IPC viz., breach of peace and criminal intimidation and finally the IPC offences end with Section 509. Section 509 deals with gesture and intending to insult modesty of a woman.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 10 that:
Under the Information Technology Act what is alleged is Section 66E. Section 66E reads as follows:
“66-E. Punishment for violation of privacy.— Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section:
- “transmit” means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;
- “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means;
- “private area” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast;
- “publishes” means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for public;
- “under circumstances violating privacy” means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable expectation that—
- he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his private area was being captured; or
- any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.” (Emphasis supplied)
Whoever intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of private area of a person without his or her consent is said to be committing the offence under Section 66E. Several descriptions are found with regard to capturing of images or making video. Hence, the petitioner will have to be tried for the aforesaid offence.”
To put it briefly, the Bench points out in para 12 that:
If the complaint and the summary of charge sheet are considered on the bedrock of the offences alleged, what would unmistakably emerge is, a few of the offences are loosely laid against the petitioner and a few are appropriately. Insofar as the allegation of voyeurism as obtaining under Section 354C is concerned, the contents of the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet clearly meet the offence of voyeurism. The petitioner is alleged to have shot several videos of intimate moments or even videos of the parts of the body of the complainant. If this be the allegation and it being sustained while filing the charge sheet, it would undoubtedly meet the allegation of voyeurism.” In this very para, the leading case of Veerabhadra Swamy S v. State of Karnataka Crl.P.2396 of 2024 decided on 10.06.2024 is explained in detail. It is also pointed out in this very same para 12 that:
Therefore, the petitioner will have to be tried for the offence under Section 354C.”
Most significantly and most rationally, the Bench encapsulates in para 13 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 354D i.e., stalking is concerned, the allegation against the petitioner and the complainant is of sexual acts. Mere 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.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 14 that:
The offences under Sections 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC are however be sustainable, as the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet clearly make out those offences. Any further elaboration of the statements recorded and their consideration in the subject petition would prejudice further proceedings before the concerned Court against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court exercise restraint in going deep into those statements.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 15 that:
The other offence is under the Act. What is alleged is Section 3(2)(v). Whoever commits offence against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is to be incurring the wrath of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. As referred to in the section, it is clearly indicative of the fact that the petitioner has committed certain offences against the complainant. It is nobody’s case that the petitioner did not know that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the said offence also is to be sustained.”
Most forthrightly, it would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 17 stating precisely that:
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 Cr.P.C., 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.”
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by holding in para 18 that:
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
- Criminal Petition is allowed in part.
- Proceedings in Special C.C.No.1029 of 2024 stand quashed only in respect of offence alleged under Section 354D of the IPC.
- Criminal Petition is dismissed qua all other offences.
- It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending against him before the concerned Court or any other fora.
Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2024 also stands disposed.”
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut-250001, Uttar Pradesh
