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.