Mere WhatsApp Messages, Even If Offensive, Cannot Be Branded as Stalking – Karnataka High Court

“Quashing Entire Criminal Proceedings Would Be an Abuse of Judicial Power Where Serious Disputed Facts Exist” – Karnataka High Court  refused to quash a criminal case in its entirety, observing that courts should not short-circuit prosecutions involving serious charges merely because parties share a personal history. Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled that while the charge of “stalking” under Section 354-D IPC was unsustainable, the other charges relating to voyeurism, criminal intimidation, and Scheduled Tribes atrocities must proceed to trial.

Justice Nagaprasanna set the tone of the judgment by reminding that “the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., though wide, are to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution,” stressing that judicial interference should be the exception, not the rule.

“A Personal Relationship Gone Sour Does Not Automatically Render a Criminal Complaint False”: The Background Story

The criminal case arose from a deeply personal and contentious fallout between the complainant, Pinki Sharma, a Scheduled Tribe woman, and the accused, Abhishek Mishra, a fellow UPSC aspirant. Their acquaintance, which blossomed into a romantic relationship during their days in Delhi, tragically soured by late 2023. Accusations erupted that the petitioner recorded private and intimate videos during their relationship and later threatened to disseminate them on social media after the relationship deteriorated.

On 19th October 2023, the complainant approached Chandra Layout Police Station alleging grave offences under the IPC, IT Act, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The police investigation culminated in the filing of a charge sheet in Special C.C. No. 1029/2024, which included charges of voyeurism (Section 354-C IPC), stalking (354-D IPC), intentional insult, criminal intimidation, and invasion of privacy under the IT Act, along with atrocities against a Scheduled Tribe under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

“Voyeurism Involves Infringement of the Most Private Spaces of an Individual”: Court’s Examination of the Key Charges

Justice Nagaprasanna gave particular attention to the offence of voyeurism under Section 354-C IPC, stating that the complaint and the charge sheet explicitly alleged that the petitioner “shot several videos of intimate moments or even videos of the parts of the body of the complainant.” Referring to settled law, the Court remarked:

“It would undoubtedly meet the allegation of voyeurism. This Court, in the case of Veerabhadra Swamy S v. State of Karnataka, has categorically held that recording private acts without consent falls squarely within the mischief of Section 354-C IPC.”

Drawing from the Delhi High Court’s decision in Sonu v. State (2023 SCC Online Del 1955), the judgment underlined the legal understanding that “private acts” are those where a person reasonably expects privacy, irrespective of whether the setting is strictly private or a less formal domestic arrangement.

The Court concluded that the charge of voyeurism was rightly framed and could not be quashed at the threshold, stating:
“Therefore, the petitioner will have to be tried for the offence under Section 354-C IPC.”

“Merely Exchanging WhatsApp Messages Does Not Constitute Stalking”: Why One Charge Was Quashed

In sharp contrast, Justice Nagaprasanna noted the overreach in slapping a charge of stalking under Section 354-D IPC. The judgment observed that:

“Mere sending messages between the two or exchange of messages which contained profanity would not amount to stalking.”

The Court highlighted that Section 354-D requires an element of persistent following or monitoring despite disinterest, which was absent in this case. Terming the allegation of stalking as “loosely laid,” the Court exercised its discretion to quash proceedings for this specific offence alone.

“Criminal Intimidation, Intentional Insult, and Violation of Privacy Are Serious Allegations That Deserve a Full Trial”

Addressing the allegations under Sections 504, 506, 509 IPC, and Section 66-E of the IT Act, the Court categorically found prima facie material supporting the accusations. The judgment recorded:

“The complaint and the summary of the charge sheet clearly make out these offences… Any further elaboration of the statements recorded would prejudice the trial proceedings.”

On the application of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Court took particular note of the petitioner’s admitted knowledge of the complainant’s caste. Justice Nagaprasanna stated:

“It is nobody’s case that the petitioner did not know that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is sustainable.”

“Quashing Proceedings in Serious Factual Disputes Would Frustrate the Criminal Process”: Supreme Court Precedent Applied

In refusing to interdict the trial for the major offences, the High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 9 SCC 35, cautioning that:

“The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should not entertain, interdict, or quash proceedings if the issue would revolve round seriously disputed questions of fact.”

Quoting the apex Court’s emphasis, Justice Nagaprasanna observed: “The High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can it exercise the powers like an appellate court.”

Summing up the principles, the Court concluded: “Except for the offence of stalking under Section 354-D IPC, the remaining offences involve a maze of serious disputed facts… permitting a trial is inevitable.”

Justice Nagaprasanna ultimately allowed the petition in part, stating: “Proceedings in Special C.C. No. 1029 of 2024 stand quashed only in respect of offence alleged under Section 354-D IPC. Criminal Petition is dismissed qua all other offences.”

The Court prudently concluded by observing that all findings in the present order are confined to the consideration under Section 482 CrPC and shall not prejudice or bind the trial court during adjudication.

This ruling serves as a crucial reaffirmation of judicial discipline in quashing criminal proceedings and underscores the Court’s duty to allow the criminal process to run its natural course where grave allegations demand a full-fledged trial.

Date of Decision: 08 July 2025