Karnataka High Court: The Single Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., quashed an FIR against a 21-year-old student arising from a solitary Instagram message complimenting a female classmate’s appearance. The Court held that the message did not disclose voyeurism, stalking or intentional insult to a woman’s modesty, observing that youthful or inappropriate expressions cannot automatically constitute criminal offences.
The Court observed that,
“The compliment was couched in what is now popularly described as “Gen-Z lingo”. The expression used, may be inappropriate, indiscreet and best avoided. Youthful vocabulary, however, cannot by itself become the gateway to criminal prosecution, unless the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are demonstrably present.”
Background
The dispute arose from a private communication exchanged between the petitioner and the Respondent 2 through Instagram. The petitioner, aged about 21 years, was a student and State-level cricketer preparing to represent an Under-19 team in Tamil Nadu. The complainant-Respondent 2, aged about 20 years, was his classmate and friend. The petitioner sent her a direct message commenting on her appearance which stated: “U kinda look so hot in light coloured clothes.” What began as a fleeting digital compliment between the 2 young classmates soon snowballed into a criminal prosecution. The single message was turned into a criminal proceeding invoking the complaint against the petitioner under Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), relating respectively to voyeurism, stalking, and words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman along with Sections 66-E and 67-D, Information Technology Act, 2000.
The petitioner stated that during the course of investigation, his laptop and mobile phone were allegedly seized by the investigating authorities. The petitioner contended that the seizure was contrary to law and lacked statutory sanction. The petitioner confronted with the spectre of a criminal investigation arising out of a solitary message, approached the High Court, seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The High Court had earlier stayed further investigation insofar as the petitioner was concerned.
The petitioner argued that the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against him. According to the petitioner, the communication was a solitary private message between 2 young classmates and friends. It was submitted that the message merely constituted an expression describing the complainant’s appearance and did not involve any act of voyeurism, stalking or conduct intended to insult her modesty. The petitioner further contended that if investigation was permitted, it would had become an abuse of the process of the law and jeopardize his career. The respondent-State opposed the petition and sought continuation of the investigation, contending that be it the classmate or friend, he had no right to speak on how beautiful the complainant looked on a particular day.
Decision and Analysis
The Court after examining the material on record, perused Sections 77, 78 and 79 BNS. The Court observed that there was no allegation of the petitioner having watched, captured or disseminated any private act so as to constitute voyeurism. There is no allegation of repeated following, monitoring or persistent communication, despite disinterest so as to constitute stalking. Nor does the message, viewed in its setting and in the backdrop of the relationship between the parties, disclose the deliberate intention necessary to attract the offence of insulting the modesty of a woman.
The Court characterised the entire prosecution as resting upon a solitary private communication. The compliment was couched in what is now popularly described as “Gen-Z lingo”. It noted that the message was neither circulated in the public domain nor published or broadcast for the purpose of humiliating the complainant. There was no series of messages, repetition, threat, demand or subsequent objectionable communication. The expression employed by the petitioner was undoubtedly colloquial and belonged to the idiom of contemporary youth. The young increasingly communicate in abbreviations, informal phrases and expressions peculiar to the digital age, often without pausing to contemplate that a casual word, typed in a fleeting moment, may one day drag them into the unforgiving web of criminal proceedings.
At the same time, the Court expressly stated that the expression used, may be inappropriate, indiscreet and best avoided. Youthful vocabulary, however, cannot by itself become the gateway to criminal prosecution, unless the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are demonstrably present. The criminal law cannot be employed as a bludgeon to punish every social indiscretion or linguistic impropriety. It must remain reserved for conduct that squarely falls within the 4 corners of the penal provision.
The Court laid down the broader principle that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because an expression is inelegant, immature, distasteful or socially inappropriate. Every impropriety is not criminality, every indiscretion cannot be elevated into an offence and every awkward expression of admiration cannot be forced into the statutory mould of voyeurism, stalking or insult the modesty of a woman. The Court particularly emphasised that permitting a solitary private message of the nature involved in the case to attract all these offences would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The Court further considered the consequences of permitting the investigation to continue would imperil the career of a young student and sportsperson. Allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would permit the process of criminal law itself to become the punishment. Such continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law and inevitably result in miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed all the proceedings held against the petitioner. The Court also directed the investigating officer to return all items belonging to the petitioner that had been seized and remained in custody.
[Thomas Jadan v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 34898 of 2024, decided on 21-7-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Nidhishree B.V., Advocate
For the Respondent: Waheeda M.M., HCGP, Advocate
