Karnataka HC Lets IT Act Case Against 5 Men Proceed Over Alleged Obscene Video Circulated With Lecturer’s Instagram ID

In brief

The question

Whether the charge-sheet proceedings under Sections 66(C) and 67 of the IT Act should be quashed because the petitioners disputed that respondent No. 2 was the person depicted in the video.

The court held

The Court declined to quash the proceedings, holding that the allegations and investigation material raised matters requiring determination at trial.

It also directed

The criminal petition was dismissed.

The trial court was directed to decide the case independently, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.

01Facts

Respondent No. 2 alleged that her Instagram photograph and account details were circulated with an obscene video in WhatsApp groups, including a group called “Bad Boys”; she later received messages on Instagram.

¶ 3–4

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 66(C) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶ 2–5

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC (filed under Section 528 BNSS), contending that the person in the video was not respondent No. 2.

¶ 2–5

The forensic material recorded the recovery and WhatsApp sharing of image and video files, and reported similarities in facial features in certain compared images, while also noting limitations in the available examination.

¶ 7–12

02Issues

i.Whether the charge-sheet proceedings under Sections 66(C) and 67 of the IT Act should be quashed because the petitioners disputed that respondent No. 2 was the person depicted in the video.

¶ 5, 17, 23

ii.Whether the complaint and material collected during investigation disclosed issues requiring trial, rather than threshold termination of the proceedings.

¶ 22–27

03Law Applied

Section 66(C) of the IT Act penalises fraudulent or dishonest use of another person’s electronic signature, password, or other unique identification feature.

¶ 19

Section 67 penalises publishing, transmitting, or causing the publication or transmission in electronic form of material that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to encounter it.

¶ 21

In exercising its quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court stated that it could not conduct a mini-trial or weigh disputed forensic evidence as if determining guilt; factual disputes requiring evidentiary assessment should be left to trial.

¶ 23, 26

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 67

04Reasoning

The Court considered the prosecution case as a whole: the alleged association of respondent No. 2’s photograph and Instagram identity with an obscene video, the alleged circulation through WhatsApp, the recovered files and sharing records, and the forensic indication of facial-feature similarity.

¶ 13–17, 22–25

It treated the petitioners’ claim that the person in the video was different as a disputed factual question.

¶ 23–26

The forensic limitations did not, at this stage, justify deciding identity or the petitioners’ respective roles without trial.

¶ 23–26

The Court also observed that posting a photograph publicly did not amount to consent to its use in obscene material or its circulation.

¶ 14