Karnataka HC refuses to quash case against 4 youths over circulation of obscene video targeting lecturer

The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to quash criminal proceedings against four youths accused of circulating an obscene video targetting a woman assistant professor.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj also made strong observations on the seriousness of the allegations, while dismissing petitions filed by the accused seeking to quash the case against them.

“These (allegations) are (more) serious than IPC 302 (murder),” the Court observed.

The case involved allegations that a woman lecturer’s photograph and Instagram handle were circulated along with an erotic and obscene video in various WhatsApp groups, including a group named ‘Bad Boys’.

The Court noted that this affected her reputation, particularly since the content was shared in the locality where she worked.

The woman worked as an assistant professor at a private college in Puttur. Unknown persons allegedly circulated an obscene video in a WhatsApp group, along with details of her Instagram handle and her photograph.

The photograph, Instagram account details and video were subsequently shared in other WhatsApp groups, following which the woman began receiving messages on her Instagram account.

A complaint was filed by the woman on March 6, 2020. Subsequently, a criminal case was registered for offences under Sections 66C (Identity theft/ fraudulent or dishonest use of another person’s electronic signature, password or other unique identification feature) and 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The investigation was subsequently completed, and a chargesheet was filed on July 17, 2024.

Four youths accused in the case eventually moved the High Court with a plea to quash the criminal proceedings against them. Their counsel, advocate K Ravishankar, argued that the photograph circulated was taken from the complainant’s Instagram account, whereas the woman appearing in the obscene video was a different person.

He contended that the circulation of the complainant’s photograph and Instagram ID alongside a video featuring another person would not, by itself, constitute offences under Sections 66C and 67 of the Information Technology Act.

The Court, in turn, called upon the State to ascertain whether the woman depicted in the photograph and the video was the same person.

The High Court Government Pleader subsequently placed before the Court Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports. The first FSL report, dated April 25, 2024, concerned the examination of the complainant’s mobile phone. The expert opinion indicated that similarities were found between the images in the video and the photograph available on the complainant’s Instagram account.

A second FSL report, dated July 28, 2023, relating to the examination of another mobile phone, also dealt with screenshots of the image and video circulated through WhatsApp. The report contained observations concerning the facial features of the female individual depicted in the material examined.

After considering the forensic reports, the Court observed that the complainant’s facial features and Instagram handle appear to have been used in connection with the circulation of the obscene video.

It held that the petitioners’ contention that the woman in the Instagram photograph was different from the person appearing in the video could not be accepted at this stage, particularly in view of the FSL reports.

The Court concluded that a full-fledged trial was required in the case.

“The video which is being circulated is an erotic indecent video bearing the facial resemblance of the Respondent 2 (complainant) as per the report of the FSL. Whether it is indeed so would have to be subject to trial," the Court observed, before dismissing the petitions filed by the accused.