Karnataka High Court: While deliberating over the instant petition filed by the accused seeking quashment of criminal proceedings in respect for offences 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 Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., quashed the proceedings only with respect to Section 354-D of the IPC stating that the offence of stalking was loosely laid against the accused. The Court further opined that mere sending messages between the parties in the instant case or exchange of messages which contained profanity, would not amount to stalking.
Background:
The complainant and the accused met in January 2022 while the accused was preparing for UPSC. The complainant was also preparing for UPSC exams. It was averred that under the garb of exchange of notes for study, the accused and the complainant got in touch with each other with exchange of messages. Eventually their friendship blossomed into relationship, however, at some point in time, this relationship turned irrevocable sore.
Thereafter, the complainant registered a complaint before the Chandra Layout Police Station on 19-10-2023 making several allegations against the accused. The Police after investigation filed the chargesheet, which eventually led the accused to file the instant petition.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the facts of the case, copy of the complaint and chargesheet, the Court noted that summary of charge sheet contains vivid details of what the allegations are. The chargesheet consisted of offences punishable under Sections 354-C, 354-D, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC; Section 66E of the IT Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
The Court then examined that whether each of the afore-stated offences could be sustained against the accused or not. Perusing Section 66E of the IT Act, the Court stated that 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. It was pointed out that several descriptions were found regarding capturing of images or making video; hence, the accused will have to be tried for the aforesaid offence.
Moving onto Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the Court pointed out that it was clearly indicative that the accused has committed certain offences against the complainant. Furthermore, the accused knew that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the said offence also was sustained.
Coming onto the penal provision of IPC, the Court pointed out that the contents of the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet clearly met allegation of voyeurism which falls under Section 354-C IPC. The accused allegedly shot several videos of intimate moments or even videos of the parts of the body of the complainant. Therefore, the accused will have to be tried for the offence under Section 354-C. However, the Court did not sustain the allegation of stalking. Furthermore, the Court said that the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC were sustainable, as the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet clearly made out those offences.
After perusing summary of the chargesheet, and submissions by the parties, the Court pointed out that they were a maze of facts. The Court took note of Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 9 SCC 35, wherein the Supreme Court directed that High Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC., should not entertain, interdict or quash the proceedings if the issue would revolve round seriously disputed questions of fact.
The Court found that the instant case revolved around seriously disputed questions of fact, which would require further proceedings before the Court concerned. Therefore, the Court deemed it fit to not exercise its power under Section 482 to quash the entire proceedings. Hence, the Court allowed the petition in part and quashed proceedings against the accused only for the offence under Section 354-D.
[Abhishek Mishra v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 10617, decided on 8-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Petitioner: MONICA PATIL, ADVOCATE
Respondent: B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1; M.B. RAVI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
