Bengaluru, Jul 21: The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a college student who was booked for alleged offences of voyeurism, stalking, outraging the modesty of a woman and violation of privacy after sending an Instagram direct message (DM) calling his classmate “pretty.”
Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the private exchange between the two classmates did not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged and observed that allowing the investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
“The chat is not a public chat. It is a chat between two individuals… The language deployed is that which students of this day use. That cannot become a crime,” the Court observed.
The case arose from a private Instagram conversation between the petitioner, a 20-year-old student, and his 21-year-old classmate. According to the Court, the petitioner commented “pretty” on a photograph posted by the complainant. After she replied “thanks,” he sent another message describing her as “beautiful,” which the Court referred to as part of “Gen Z lingo.”
The messages were later shown to the complainant’s father, a senior IPS officer, following which an FIR was registered against the student under provisions relating to voyeurism, stalking, insulting the modesty of a woman and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act dealing with violation of privacy.
The petitioner argued that the criminal case had seriously affected his career, stating that he was a State-level cricketer and was scheduled to represent the Under-19 team in Tamil Nadu when the FIR was registered.
He also alleged that during the investigation, the police seized his laptop and mobile phone without following the prescribed legal procedure. The High Court had earlier stayed further investigation in the matter.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution was based entirely on an innocuous private conversation between two classmates and that the exchange did not constitute any criminal offence.
Opposing the plea, the State argued that merely because the parties were classmates did not entitle the petitioner to comment on the complainant’s appearance and contended that the investigation should be allowed to proceed.
After examining the Instagram chats, Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the entire prosecution rested solely on the private conversation between the two students.
“It’s a DM on Instagram, a direct message. What’s wrong with it? She must be happy. That’s why I said Gen Z lingo,” the judge remarked during the hearing.
The Court held that the conversation was private and not in the public domain, and that the language used reflected the manner in which present-day students communicate.
It ruled that the messages did not amount to voyeurism, stalking or outraging the modesty of a woman. While observing that one of the expressions used by the petitioner may have been inappropriate, the Court said such usage by students, in the facts of the case, could not be criminalised.
Holding that continuation of the investigation would not only jeopardise the student’s career but also result in a miscarriage of justice, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.
The Court also directed the investigating officer to immediately return all articles seized from the petitioner, including his laptop and mobile phone, if they continued to remain in police custody. (Bar & Bench)
