Surreptitious Recording and Public Dissemination of Obscene Content Constitutes Stalking and Information Technology Act Violations

The Petitioner/accused seeks to quash proceedings in C.C.No.47469/2025 arising from a suo motu complaint registered by the Respondent No. 2 (Police Sub-Inspector). During a social media check, the officer discovered an Instagram account named ‘Metro_Chicks’ containing images and 14 obscene videos of women traveling in Bengaluru Metro trains, recorded clandestinely and focusing on private body parts.

Investigation revealed the Petitioner created the account using his personal email and mobile device to gain "likes and comments".

A charge sheet was filed for stalking and distributing obscene material, which the Petitioner challenged on the grounds that the allegations were vague and based on "stock witnesses".

1. Whether the allegations in the charge sheet are too vague and bald to sustain a criminal prosecution under the BNS and IT Act.

2. Whether the act of surreptitiously recording and disseminating videos of women in public transport constitutes the offense of stalking and publication of obscene material.

Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which defines stalking as monitoring a woman's use of the internet or electronic communication, or following her.

Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008, which penalizes the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form that is lascivious or appeals to prurient interests.

Section 238(c) of the BNS (corresponding to outraging modesty).

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument regarding the vagueness of the complaint, noting that the charge sheet paints a "disquieting picture" of calculated intrusion into the privacy and dignity of unsuspecting women.

The Court reasoned that following women and monitoring them to record unauthorized images focusing on private body parts falls squarely within the "mischief" sought to be curbed by Section 78 of the BNS.

Regarding the IT Act, the Court found that the dissemination of 14 such videos on a public digital platform for "voyeuristic consumption" clearly attracts Section 67.

The Court emphasized that public transport must remain a safe space and that quashing such proceedings would embolden similar transgressions and imperil societal safety.

The court answered that the acts alleged do not constitute a "trivial lapse" but a pattern of conduct violating the dignity of women. The proceedings in C.C.No.47469/2025 were allowed to continue, clarifying that the observations made were limited to the consideration of the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C. equivalent).