Sending Text Messages With Foul Language Not Offence Of Stalking Under S.354D IPC: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently dropped charges of stalking levelled against a man saying that merely sending text messages to the complainant (victim) containing foul language does not constitute the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 354-D deals with stalking. Any man who follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such a woman to foster personal interaction or monitors the woman on the internet, email or electronic communication commits the offence of stalking. A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while partly allowing the petition filed by one Abhishek Mishra who had approached the court seeking quashing of a criminal case registered against him. It said, “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.” The police had based their report on the complaint received by the victim with whom the petitioner was in a relationship registered an offence under Section 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. Seeking quashing of the offence the petitioner argued that 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, 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. Further it was said talks of settlement were initiated by the members of the families of both the parties and on 10-11-2023 the marriage is said to be registered. However, on 14-12-2023 the complainant registered another crime against all the family members that she was forced at the marriage Registrar's office to give her consent to marriage. Pointing to the same the petitioner contended that entire present proceedings right from the complaint till filing of the charge sheet is gross abuse of the process of law. The counsel for the complainant opposed the plea contending that the police have filed a chargesheet and the trial must be permitted to go on with liberty to the concerned Court to add offences under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC also and sought dismissal of the petition. Considering the complaint and evidence the bench said “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.” It added “Insofar as allegations of voyeurism as obtaining under Section 354C are 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.” Holding that offence under the atrocities act was rightly applied, “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,” it said. Accordingly it 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 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.” Appearance: Advocate MONICA PATIL for Petitioner. Additional SPP B.N.JAGADEESHA, FOR R-1. Advocate M.B.RAVI KUMAR, FOR R-2. Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 236 Case Title: Abhishek Mishra AND State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.8596 OF 2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Sending Text Messages With Foul Language Not Offence Of Stalking Under S.354D IPC: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags