Merely Sending Text Messages With Foul Language Is Not Stalking: Karnataka HC
Merely Sending Text Messages with Foul Language Is Not Stalking
Explanation:
Stalking, as defined under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), involves a man following or contacting a woman repeatedly despite her clear indication of disinterest, or monitoring her use of electronic communication. The key elements of stalking include:
Repeated Contact: Initiating or attempting to initiate contact with the woman on multiple occasions.
Disregard for Disinterest: Continuing contact despite the woman's clear indication that she is not interested.
Monitoring: Observing or tracking the woman's use of electronic communication.
Merely sending a single or isolated message, even if it contains foul language, does not necessarily constitute stalking. Stalking requires a pattern of behavior that causes fear or distress to the woman.
Case Study: Abhishek Mishra v. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Date of Judgment: July 14, 2025
Case Reference: Criminal Petition No. 8596 of 2024
Facts:
Parties Involved: The complainant, a woman from Bengaluru, and the accused, Abhishek Mishra, a man from Allahabad.
Background: The complainant and the accused met during UPSC coaching in Delhi in 2022. They developed a relationship, which later turned sour.
Allegations: The complainant accused the accused of sending her text messages containing foul language. She also alleged that he recorded her private videos and threatened to share them on social media.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 354C – Voyeurism
Section 354D – Stalking
Section 504 – Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace
Section 506 – Criminal intimidation
Section 509 – Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
Information Technology Act, 2000:
Section 66E – Violation of privacy
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
Section 3(2)(v) – Offenses committed against persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
Court's Observations:
Stalking Charge: The court observed that the allegations related to stalking were loosely laid. It emphasized that sending messages containing foul language, in itself, does not amount to stalking under Section 354D of the IPC.
Other Charges: The court noted that the complainant's allegations concerning voyeurism, criminal intimidation, and offenses under the SC/ST Act required further examination and could not be dismissed at this stage.
Quashing of Stalking Charge: The court quashed the stalking charge under Section 354D, stating that the offense was not made out based on the available material.
Conclusion:
The Karnataka High Court's decision highlights that not every instance of sending offensive or foul messages constitutes stalking. For a charge of stalking to be valid, there must be a pattern of behavior that causes fear or distress to the woman, and the contact must be repeated despite her clear indication of disinterest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments