Solitary Instagram compliment does not amount to voyeurism, stalking or insult to a woman’s modesty, Karnataka High Court rules; quashes FIR against student

The petitioner, a 21-year-old student and State-level cricketer, and respondent No. 2, aged 20, were classmates and friends.

The petitioner sent respondent No. 2 a solitary Instagram direct message stating: “U kinda look so hot in light coloured clothes.”

Respondent No. 2’s complaint resulted in registration of Crime No. 363/2024 by Ashok Nagar Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and Sections 66E and 67D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

During investigation, the petitioner’s laptop and mobile phone were allegedly seized.

The High Court had stayed further investigation insofar as the petitioner was concerned.

Respondent No. 2, despite service, remained unrepresented.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

1. Whether a solitary private Instagram message complimenting the complainant’s appearance disclosed the ingredients of voyeurism under Section 77, stalking under Section 78, or insulting the modesty of a woman under Section 79 of the BNS.

2. Whether continuation of the criminal investigation and proceedings, on the facts alleged, would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction.

The Court applied Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the BNS.

Section 77 requires watching, capturing or disseminating the image of a woman engaged in a private act; Section 78 requires repeated following or contact despite a clear indication of disinterest, or monitoring of a woman’s electronic communications; and Section 79 requires words, sounds, gestures or conduct intended to insult a woman’s modesty or intrude upon her privacy.

The Court further applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted as true, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process or cause miscarriage of justice.

The Court emphasised that every impropriety, social indiscretion or inelegant expression does not constitute criminality unless the conduct falls within the statutory ingredients of the penal provision.

The Court found that the message was a single, private communication and was neither published nor disseminated in the public domain.

It did not allege that the petitioner watched, captured or disseminated any image of the complainant engaged in a private act; therefore, the ingredients of voyeurism under Section 77 were absent.

There was also no allegation of repeated contact, following, monitoring, pursuit, threat or continued communication despite disinterest, excluding the essential elements of stalking under Section 78.

Although the expression used was inappropriate and indiscreet, the Court held that, viewed in the context of the parties’ relationship as classmates and friends and the solitary nature of the message, it did not establish the deliberate intention required under Section 79 to insult the complainant’s modesty.

Continuing the investigation on such allegations would imperil the petitioner’s academic and sporting career and would effectively make the criminal process itself a punishment, amounting to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.

The Court also directed the Investigating Officer to forthwith return the petitioner’s seized laptop, mobile phone and other items, if still in custody.

Consequently, the pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.