Karnataka High Court Rules Foul Language in Text Messages Does Not Constitute Stalking
Facts of the Case
So, back in January 2022, these two met in Delhi while grinding for the UPSC exams yeah, the big one. Things kicked off pretty chill, and it got serious fast, especially after the guy helped her find a place to stay. According to his version, they even ended up married (his words, not necessarily gospel).
Fast forward, though, and it all goes downhill. Come October 19, 2023, she’s at the police station, saying he promised marriage and then plot twist secretly filmed her in private moments. Then he allegedly used those videos to blackmail her. Not great. Cops dug in, and now there’s a charge sheet (Special C.C. No. 1029/2024, if you’re into details), slapping him with a bunch of charges: Indian Penal Code, IT Act, even the SC/ST Act. Basically, things went from “meet cute” to “see you in court” real quick.
Legal Provisions Involved
Okay, here’s the lowdown on the charges flying around: So, Section 354-C of the IPC? That’s basically the “creeper with a camera” law if some dude’s snapping pics or spying on a woman in a private moment without her say-so, or sharing those pics, he’s in for it. Then there’s Section 354-D, which goes after stalkers. You know the type won’t take a hint, keeps messaging or following a woman even after she’s like, “Nah, leave me alone,” or is lurking on her socials.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Not cool, and definitely not legal. Sections 504, 506, and 509 are about running your mouth or worse. We’re talking about insulting someone to start a fight, threatening them, or saying messed-up stuff to a woman to insult her modesty. All three are a big legal nope. Jump to the IT Act, Section 66E (yeah, tech laws are in the mix): This one’s about snapping or sharing pics of someone’s private parts without them saying yes.
It’s not just shady, it’s illegal think jail time up to three years, or paying up a hefty fine. And if things get even uglier, Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act lands like a hammer. If you do any of these crimes and you know the victim is from a Scheduled Caste or Tribe and the charge carries ten years or more in jail? You’re looking at life imprisonment and a fine. The law’s not messing around here. So yeah, it’s a whole list of serious stuff, not just a slap on the wrist.
Issues Before the Court
So, here’s the deal the guy basically wanted the whole case tossed using Section 482 CrPC. He screamed “abuse of process!” and said, look, everything was consensual, and the cops just slapped on serious charges for no good reason. Stuff like voyeurism and stalking? According to him, that was a stretch, like, those allegations barely held water.
On the other side, the respondents weren’t having it. They shot back that, hey, the charge sheet actually lays out enough for real criminal offenses nothing flimsy here. Plus, they said, come on, let the trial court handle the messy details and figure out who’s right or wrong. Basically, classic courtroom back-and-forth.
Court’s Analysis
Okay, here’s the thing: the High Court basically said, “Hey, we don’t toss out cases at the charge-sheet stage unless there’s literally nothing to argue about.” They leaned on what the Supreme Court’s already decided, so, nothing groundbreaking there. Except for the stalking bit, which they dropped, every other accusation voyeurism, privacy stuff, threats, all that jazz needed to go to trial. Why? Because, apparently, the case had a bunch of messy, disputed facts.
The voyeurism and privacy stuff (Section 354-C and 66E, if you’re into numbers) were backed up by claims of sneaky recordings and threats. Then you’ve got the usual suspects insults, intimidation, “assault on modesty” (that’s Sections 504, 506, and 509) and, honestly, those fit the bill under the law. Oh, and the SC/ST charge stuck, since it was clear the accused knew the complainant was from a Scheduled Tribe. So yeah, the court’s not letting this one go early.
Final Order
So, the High Court pretty much said, “Yeah, keep going with the trial for everything except stalking.” They tossed out the stalking charge under Section 354-D IPC, figuring a couple of random texts and some nasty language don’t really tick the boxes for stalking, legally speaking.
But all the other stuff? Voyeurism, messing with someone’s privacy, being straight-up insulting, intimidation, insulting modesty, and even the SC/ST atrocities bit they’re all still in play. Those charges are heading right back for a full-on trial. Game on for everything but stalking, basically.
Author
About the Author
