Karnataka High Court's BIG Verdict: Sending Text Messages With Foul Language Indecent, But Not Stalking

(MENAFN- Live Mint) The Karnataka High Court ruled that merely sending text messages containing foul language could be indecent, but it does not necessarily mean 'stalking' while striking down stalking charges against an Allahabad man. He was facing allegations of voyeurism and criminal intimidation.

According to a Bar and Bench report, Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while quashing the offence under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man named Abhishek Mishra.

The section defines 'stalking ' as a man following or contacting a woman repeatedly to foster personal interaction, despite clear disinterest from the woman; or monitoring her use of electronic communication.

What the Karnataka High Court's ruling 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 court stated.

A woman had alleged that Mishra had met her during the UPSC coaching in Delhi, and after promising marriage, he recorded her private videos and began blackmailing her with threats to share them on social media.

Also Read | MUDA case: Karnataka HC orders issuance of notice to CM Siddaramaiah's wife

However, Mishra had filed a plea challenging court proceedings against him. In his plea, Mishra argued that the relationship was consensual and the FIR against him was an abuse of the legal process, the Bar and Bench report said.

Mishra also argued that their marriage was registered, which the woman later claimed was forced.

Criminal intimidation, voyeurism charges to remain

In a partial relief to Mishra, the Karnataka High Court quashed the stalking case against Mishra. The court, however, declined to dismiss proceedings under the SC/ST Act, IT Act and other provisions of the IPC concerning voyeurism and criminal intimidation.

Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet made out those offences, the report added.

"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 CrPC 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," the court said.

MENAFN14072025007365015876ID1109799476