Merely sending text messages with foul language is not stalking: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that merely sending text messages containing foul language does not constitute the offence of stalking under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Abhishek Mishra v State of Karnataka & Anr].

Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while quashing the offence under Section 354D IPC against a man named Abhishek Mishra.

"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.

The Court was dealing with Mishra's plea challenging the proceedings against him under various provisions of the IPC as well Information and Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

A woman alleged that Mishra met her during their 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.

Mishra contended that the relationship was consensual and the FIR was an abuse of legal process.

He also pointed out that talks of marriage had taken place and a marriage was even registered, which the woman later claimed was forced.

After considering the case, the court partly allowed Mishra's plea.

While it quashed the offence of stalking, the Bench 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 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 observed.

Advocate Monica Patil appeared for the petitioner.

Additional SPP BN Jagadeesha and Advocate MB Ravikumar appeared for the respondents.

[Read Order]