Gen Z Lingo Lands Student In Criminal Case: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Over Instagram DM Calling Classmate Beautiful

The Karnataka High Court has held that a private Instagram chat between two classmates, in which a male student complimented his female classmate using what the Court described as “Gen Z lingo”, does not attract the offences of stalking, voyeurism or outraging the modesty of a woman. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259]

A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while quashing the FIR registered against the student, also directed the Investigating Officer to immediately return the petitioner's laptop and mobile phone, if they had indeed been seized two years ago pursuant to the registration of the case.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a college student against an FIR lodged over an Instagram direct message (DM) sent to his female classmate complimenting her appearance.

Quashing the proceedings, the Court observed:

“...The petitioner in his zeal communicates to the complainant by DM (direct message) on Instagram with regard to how the complainant looked on a particular day, describing her to be beautiful but in a Gen Z lingo… The trouble crops up to the student. A crime comes to be registered and the career of the petitioner is put to jeopardy… The entire fulcrum of the crime for the aforesaid offences revolves around the chat. The chat is not a public chat; it is a chat between two individuals i.e., petitioner and complainant… Yes, the particular word used is inappropriate but that's the word used by students these days....”

The Court reproduced the impugned message in its order and noted that it merely described the complainant as “beautiful” in language commonly used by present-day students.

Examining whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of the offences invoked by the police, the Court held:

“...If this chat could lead to all that [offences], it would on the face of it become an abuse of process of law to permit investigation on the chat afore quoted for it to become the ingredients of voyeurism, outraging modesty or stalking as the case would be, since there is neither stalking nor voyeuristic act of petitioner or anything which amounts to outraging modesty of women… therefore, that cannot be a crime for aforesaid offences and permitting investigation into the aforesaid crime would jeopardise the career of the petitioner....”

The petitioner had contended that the complainant's father is a serving IPS officer and alleged that the seizure of his electronic devices was not carried out in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Hearing this, the Court made orally remarked, “When a police officer's family is the complainant, nothing is followed.”

The Court further noted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would seriously affect the petitioner's future. It recorded that the petitioner was a state-level cricketer who was set to represent the Tamil Nadu Under-19 team at the time the FIR was registered.

According to the petitioner, he and the complainant, aged 21 and 20 years respectively, were classmates and friends. He claimed that the complainant showed the message to her father, following which criminal proceedings were initiated against him.

Based on the complaint, the police registered an FIR under Sections 74, 77 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 66A & 67D of the Information Technology Act.

Opposing the plea for quashing, the High Court Government Pleader argued that the petitioner had no right to comment on how “beautiful” the complainant looked, even if she was his classmate.

The Court, however, rejected the submission, holding that the exchange was a private conversation between two individuals and did not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged.

Adv Nidhishree B V appeared for the petitioner

Case Title: TJ V. State Of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: WP 34898/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259