List of Current Affairs

Source:  Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice M Nagaprasanna held that sending profane messages alone does not amount to stalking under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 

• The Karnataka High Court  held this in the matter of Abhishek Mishra v. State of Karnataka (2025). 

What was the Background of Abhishek Mishra v. State of Karnataka (2025) Case? 

• Abhishek Mishra and complainant Pinki Sharma first met in January 2022 while both were preparing for UPSC examination in Delhi, where they began communicating under the pretext of exchanging study notes.  
• On 12th July 2023, after meeting in Delhi, their friendship developed into a romantic relationship, with the complainant joining the same coaching class and securing accommodation with the petitioner's assistance. 
• The relationship eventually deteriorated, leading the complainant to file a complaint on 19th October 2023 before Chandra Layout Police Station, Bangalore, alleging that the petitioner had promised to marry her but recorded private videos and photographs of her.  
• The complainant further alleged that the petitioner relocated from Delhi to Bangalore, began following her and her friends, showed her private content to others, used abusive language, and threatened to broadcast the intimate material on social media. 
• Based on these allegations, police registered Crime No.471 of 2023 for offences under Sections 354-C (Voyeurism), 354-D (Stalking), 504, 506, and 509 of IPC, Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 
• The petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that he and the complainant had a consensual relationship, a marriage was registered on 10th November 2023, and the entire proceedings constituted gross abuse of the process of law. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that upon examination of the complaint and summary of charge sheet, some offences were loosely laid against the petitioner while others were appropriately charged, requiring individual assessment of each alleged offence.  
• The Court held that the contents of the complaint and charge sheet clearly established the offence of voyeurism under Section 354-C, noting that the petitioner was alleged to have recorded several videos of intimate moments and body parts of the complainant, which would undoubtedly constitute voyeurism if sustained. Regarding the stalking charge under Section 354-D, the Court made a crucial distinction that mere sending of messages between parties or exchange of messages containing profanity would not amount to stalking, particularly when the allegations pertain to sexual acts between consenting adults.  
• The Court found that offences under Sections 504, 506, and 509 of IPC, along with Section 66E of Information Technology Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, were sustainable based on the available material, noting that it was undisputed that the petitioner knew the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. 
• The Court applied the Supreme Court's principle from Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that High Courts should not quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC when cases involve seriously disputed questions of fact requiring trial court examination. 
• The Court partially allowed the petition by quashing only the proceedings related to Section 354-D (stalking) while dismissing the petition concerning all other offences, clarifying that permitting further trial for stalking would constitute an abuse of the process of law. 

What is Stalking? 

About: 

• Stalking is defined as persistent following or attempting to communicate privately with someone without their consent, with the aim of causing fear or distress. 

Legal Provision - Section 354D of IPC:  

• Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code defines stalking as when any man follows a woman and repeatedly contacts or attempts to contact her despite clear indication of disinterest, or monitors her use of internet, email or electronic communication. 
• Section 77(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) now deals with stalking, replacing the previous IPC provisions. 

Essential Elements: 

• For stalking charges, four elements must be present: the perpetrator must be male, there must be unwanted approach toward a woman, the behavior must show repetition or persistence, and the woman's lack of consent must be evident. 

Punishment: 

• The first offence under Section 354D carries imprisonment up to 3 years, fine, or both, while subsequent offenses carry imprisonment up to 5 years, fine, or both. 

Case Law: 

• In Shri Deu Baju Bodake v. State of Maharashtra (2016), the Bombay High Court applied Section 354D in a case where persistent stalking led to a woman's death, highlighting the serious consequences of such behavior. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that a company suffering loss due to the accused's acts is a "victim" under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and can file an appeal against acquittal, even if it is not the original complainant. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another (2025). 

What was the Background of Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another (2025) Case? 

• Asian Paints Limited, a public company manufacturing paint products for 73 years, faced issues with counterfeit products being sold under its brand name. The company gave Power of Attorney to M/s Solution, an IPR consultancy firm, to protect its intellectual property rights including trademarks and copyrights. 
• M/s Solution appointed Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh to investigate trademark infringement and copyright violations. On 06.02.2016, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh discovered counterfeit Asian Paints products at Ganpati Traders shop owned by Ram Babu in Tunga. 
• Police found 12 buckets with counterfeit paint bearing Asian Paints' marks but lacking the genuine company mark at the bottom. Ram Babu was arrested and FIR No.30/2016 was filed under Sections 420/120B IPC and Sections 63/65 Copyright Act. 
• The Trial Court convicted Ram Babu under Section 420 IPC and Sections 63 & 65 Copyright Act in 2019, sentencing him to imprisonment and fines. Ram Babu appealed to the First Appellate Court, which acquitted him in February 2022. 
• Asian Paints filed appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC in the High Court challenging the acquittal. The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that Asian Paints was neither complainant nor victim, making their appeal unmaintainable. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's finding completely negated the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. Section 372 CrPC is a self-contained and independent provision that operates independently of other CrPC provisions, particularly Section 378. 
• The Court noted that Section 2(wa) CrPC defines 'victim' expansively as any person who suffered loss or injury due to the accused's act or omission. Asian Paints clearly suffered financial loss and reputational injury from counterfeit products being sold under its brand name. 
• The Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC grants victims an unambiguous right to appeal against any acquittal order. This right is agnostic to whether the acquittal comes from Trial Court or First Appellate Court. 
• The Court observed that when acquittal occurs at First Appellate Court level, the victim's appeal lies to the next higher judicial level, which is the High Court. The victim need not necessarily be the complainant or informant to exercise this right. 
• The Court noted that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC must be interpreted liberally and progressively to benefit victims of offences. The provision serves the salutary purpose of safeguarding victims' rights and creating substantive rights that did not exist earlier in the Code. 
• The Court observed that victims are the worst sufferers in crimes with limited role in court proceedings, necessitating special rights and compensation to prevent distortion of the criminal justice system. The proviso creates a matter of right for victims to appeal not only acquittals but also convictions for lesser offences or inadequate compensation. 

What is Section 413 BNSS ? 

• Section 413 - No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided 
  • No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force. 
• Proviso to Section 413: 
  • The victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. 
  • Such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. 
• Key Provisions: 
  • The general rule under Section 413 BNSS is that no appeal lies from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as specifically provided under the Sanhita or other applicable laws. 
  • The proviso grants victims a statutory right to file appeals in three specific circumstances: when the Court acquits the accused, when the Court convicts for a lesser offence than charged, or when the Court imposes inadequate compensation. 
  • The appeal filed by the victim follows the same appellate hierarchy as appeals against conviction orders from the same Court. 
  • The provision ensures that victims have participatory rights in the criminal justice system and can challenge judicial decisions that adversely affect their interests. 
  • The right to appeal under the proviso is independent and does not require the victim to be the complainant or informant in the case. 
  • This provision under BNSS Chapter XXXI maintains the same structure and scope as the earlier proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ensuring continuity in victims' rights under the new criminal justice framework.