The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a 21-year-old student over a single Instagram message sent to his classmate, holding that an isolated compliment, though inappropriate or indiscreet, does not by itself constitute offences of voyeurism, stalking or insulting the modesty of a woman under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition challenging the FIR registered under Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the BNS and Sections 66E and 67D of the Information Technology Act. The Court observed that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because an expression is inelegant, immature or socially inappropriate.
Also Read SC Directs Union and 10 States To Fill Disability Commissioner Posts Within Four Weeks
According to the petitioner, he and the complainant were classmates and friends. The prosecution stemmed from a single Instagram direct message in which the petitioner wrote, “U kinda look so hot in light coloured clothes.”
The complainant allegedly showed the message to her father, an IPS officer, following which an FIR was registered. During the investigation, the petitioner’s laptop and mobile phone were seized. The petitioner, a state-level cricketer, contended that the criminal proceedings had placed his academic and sporting career in jeopardy.
Examining the message, the Court noted that it was a private communication between two individuals and had neither been circulated publicly nor accompanied by any threatening or objectionable conduct. It emphasised that there was no series of messages, no repetition, no threat, no pursuit, no demand and no further communication that could attract the ingredients of the alleged offences.
The Bench held that Section 77 of the BNS (voyeurism) requires allegations of watching or capturing images of a woman engaged in a private act, while Section 78 (stalking) contemplates repeated attempts to contact a woman despite a clear indication of disinterest or monitoring her electronic communications. Similarly, Section 79 requires an intention to insult the modesty of a woman. The Court found that none of these statutory ingredients were satisfied on the facts of the case.
Observing that every impropriety is not criminality; every indiscretion cannot be elevated into an offence, the Court held that youthful vocabulary and informal digital communication cannot become the basis for criminal prosecution unless the essential ingredients of the offence are clearly made out. It cautioned that permitting such prosecutions would convert the criminal process itself into punishment.
Holding that continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner. It also directed the investigating officer to return the petitioner’s seized laptop, mobile phone and other belongings forthwith.
