Calling classmate pretty on Instagram DM not voyeurism or stalking; Karnataka HC quashes FIR against student

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a college student who was booked for voyeurism, stalking and outraging the modesty of a woman after he sent an Instagram direct message (DM) calling his classmate "pretty."

Justice M Nagaprasanna held that the private exchange between two classmates did not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences. Permitting the investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Court concluded.

"The chat is not a public chat. It is a chat between two individuals... The language deployed is that which students of this day use. That cannot become a crime," the Court observed.

The case arose out of an Instagram conversation in which the petitioner, a 20 year-old, privately messaged his 21-year-old classmate (complainant) commenting on her appearance and describing her as "beautiful" in what the Court described as "Gen Z lingo."

The message was shown to the complainant's father, a senior IPS officer, following which an FIR was registered against the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that the criminal case severely affected his career, stating that he was a State-level cricketer who was to represent the Under-19 team in Tamil Nadu at the time.

During the investigation, police allegedly seized his laptop and mobile phone. The petitioner argued that this was done without following due procedure. The High Court had earlier stayed further investigation.

Advocate Nidhishree BV, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the entire case stemmed from an innocuous Instagram conversation between two classmates. She submitted that the complainant had posted a picture, to which the petitioner commented "pretty," and after she responded "thanks," he sent another message.

Counsel argued that despite the innocuous nature of the conversation, the complainant's father initiated criminal proceedings, resulting in registration of a case citing the offences of voyeurism, stalking, insulting the modesty of a woman and violation of privacy under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.

The petitioner's counsel further contended that his laptop and mobile phone had remained in police custody for nearly two years without adherence to the prescribed legal procedure.

The High Court Government Pleader opposed the plea, contending that merely because the parties were classmates, it did not give the petitioner the right to comment on the complainant's appearance. He argued that the police investigation in the matter should be allowed to continue.

After examining the Instagram chats, Justice Nagaprasanna held that the entire prosecution rested solely on the private conversation between the petitioner and the complainant.

The judge observed,

"It's a DM on Instagram, a direct message. What's wrong with it? She must be happy. That's why I said Gen Z lingo."

The Court observed that the exchange was a personal conversation and not one made in the public domain.

It held that the language used reflected the manner in which present-day students communicate and that the isolated conversation could not constitute the offences of outraging modesty, stalking or voyeurism.

"If this chat can lead to all that, it would, on the face of it, become an abuse of the process of law," the Court observed.

The judge further held that there was neither any act of stalking nor voyeurism, nor could the messages amount to outraging the modesty of a woman.

While observing that one of the words used by the petitioner may have been inappropriate, the Court held that such usage by students could not be criminalised in the facts of the case.

Holding that continuation of the investigation would not only jeopardise the student's career but also result in miscarriage of justice, the Court allowed his petition and quashed the FIR.

The Court also directed the investigating officer to immediately return all articles seized from the petitioner, including his electronic devices, if they continued to remain in police custody.