Himachal Pradesh High Court quashes stalking case against family accused of watching neighbour through CCTV

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently quashed a case of stalking against a man and his two sons who were accused by their neighbour of watching her through the CCTV camera installed at their property [Sumehar Chand Narwal And Others vs State of HP & Ors]..Justice Rakesh Kainthla concluded that there was no proof that the CCTV camera was directed toward the informant's house and called her complaint a mere suspicion. After analysing Section 354D (stalking) of Indian Penal Code, the Court noted that offence is made out only when a person follows a woman or contracts her to foster personal interaction despite her disinterest or monitors her use of internet.However, in this case, the Court found there was no proof to show that the accused had contacted the informant to foster a personal relationship with her. “The informant did not state that she was using the internet, e-mail or any other form of electronic communication and petitioner No.1 was monitoring such activity. Therefore, the contents of FIR do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 354D of IPC,” the Court held..The woman in the police complaint had alleged that the accused had constructed a 4-5 storeyed house on the upper side of her house and installed a CCTV camera facing the lintel of her house.She further said that she keeps her clothes including undergarments on the lintel for drying them and suspected her neighbour and his sons of watching her through the CCTV camera. The informant’s husband had told the accused to remove the CCTV camera or change its direction and even the police had told them to do so, the Court was told.Following the refusal to show the footage of the CCTV camera, the police allegedly registered a First Information Report (FIR) against the accused in 2020 and later filed a chargesheet..Challenging the proceedings, the accused told the Court that FIR was registered by their neighbour since a civil dispute was pending between the parties regarding the boundaries of their land. It was explained that the CCTV camera was installed only to monitor the construction work going on at the property and for surveillance since the accused and his wife do not stay there much as they have another residence.Considering the submissions, the Court concluded that the offence of stalking was not made out. It further noted that police also invoked Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of IPC against the accused since they had not supplied the recording of the CCTV camera. However, the Court held that since no offence of stalking was made out, the offence under Section 201 IPC was also not made out against the accused..With regard to other charges against the accused, the Court noted that police had invoked Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of IPC on the basis of the statement of the informant. Though the accused pressed for quashing of these charges as well, the High Court said it was for the trial court to see the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations.“Therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to say at this stage that no offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 509 of IPC have been made out against the petitioners,” it added. .Thus, the Court partly allowed the petition as it quashed the stalking charge against the accused. It further ordered that proceedings for other offences will continue.Meanwhile, the Court also directed the accused to pay ₹5,000 to Amar Ujala newspaper for unnecessarily dragging it into the case. The newspaper had published a news item related to the dispute. Aggrieved by the same, the accused had added it as a party to the petition seeking quashing of FIR.The Court said the newspaper was unnecessarily arrayed as a party before the Court and was thus entitled to compensation..Advocate Sunil Kumar represented the petitioners.Deputy Advocate General RP Singh represented the State.Legal Aid Counsel, Advocate Meera Devi represented the complainant.Advocate Prince Chauhan appeared for Amar Ujala. [Read Judgment]