Creating Fake Social Media Profiles to Portray Woman as a Prostitute Amounts to Prima Facie Defamation: Karnataka High Court Refuses to Quash Proceedings

“Derogatory Posts in Public Domain Carry Wide Circulation—Trial Must Proceed” — In a significant ruling Karnataka High Court, while dismissing a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, held that creating fake social media accounts with sexually explicit content and falsely portraying a woman as a prostitute constitutes a prima facie offence of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, and also attracts provisions of the Information Technology Act, particularly Sections 66C, 66D and 67A.

Justice M.I. Arun, sitting at the Bengaluru bench, upheld the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 16087/2022 against the petitioner Pramod Shivashankar, who was accused of online harassment and digital vilification of his estranged sister-in-law, Vaishnavi, amid family discord.

“Public Accessibility of Fake Accounts Satisfies the Requirement of ‘Publication’ Under Defamation Law”

The Court noted that the accused allegedly created multiple fake profiles, some impersonating the respondent, others anonymously defaming her and her family. One such account, the respondent alleged, portrayed her as a call girl seeking male company.

“The allegation... that the respondent is portrayed as a call girl looking for men... and that such content is accessible to random persons on the internet... if proved, would definitely be considered defamatory in character.” [Para 4]

The Court clarified that posting such material in the public domain, even digitally, satisfies the essential element of “publication” under Section 499 IPC, making it eligible for criminal prosecution

“Identity Theft and Online Impersonation Are Offences—Disputed Facts Must Be Tested at Trial”

Rejecting the petitioner's plea that the charges were baseless and that he had not created any fake account, the Court observed:

“Whether the petitioner actually created the fake social media accounts... is a matter of trial and cannot be decided at the stage of quashing.” [Para 3]

The Bench found no error in the Trial Court’s decision to frame charges.

“Online Abuse Within Families Cannot Be Dismissed as Mere Matrimonial Discord”

The accused, brother-in-law of the complainant, argued that this was a private family matter arising from matrimonial disputes. The Court, however, rejected this line of defence:

“The allegations are serious in nature and cannot be brushed aside as mere family quarrel. Material shows ‘public domain’ posts leading to wide circulation.” [Para 2, 4]

Thus, the Court underscored the need to treat digital defamation and online sexual harassment within families as legally actionable and not immune by virtue of familial ties.

“High Threshold for Quashing Criminal Proceedings”: Reiterates Scope of Section 482 CrPC

Justice Arun reaffirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, especially when facts are disputed and material evidence supports the framing of charges.

“Sworn statements and preliminary material support cognizance—no perversity found in order framing charges.” [Para 4]

Accordingly, the Court found no merit in interfering with the trial proceedings and dismissed the petition.

This ruling sends a strong message against the growing trend of digital defamation and identity-based online harassment, particularly in the context of familial disputes. The High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings at a pre-trial stage underscores the judiciary’s increasing recognition of cyber offences as serious legal wrongs deserving full trial and adjudication.

Date of Decision: 30 October 2025