Bengaluru: In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court clarified that using profane language in private messages between two individuals, while indecent, does not amount to stalking under Indian law. The decision came during a hearing on a case involving a man from Allahabad, who was accused of voyeurism, criminal intimidation, and stalking by a Bengaluru woman.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, delivering the verdict, noted that Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines stalking as a man repeatedly following or contacting a woman despite her disinterest, or monitoring her electronically. He stated:

“The exchange of messages, even those containing profanity, does not by itself constitute stalking… The allegation is loosely laid.”

Background of the Case

  • The accused and the complainant met in 2022 while preparing for the UPSC exams in Delhi.

  • Their bond, which began over academic exchanges, grew into an intimate relationship.

  • After their breakup, the woman filed a police complaint in Bengaluru in October 2023, accusing the man of:

    • Secretly recording private videos,

    • Threatening to circulate them online,

    • Criminal intimidation.

Marriage and Legal Tangle

  • Despite serious accusations, the two reportedly registered their marriage on November 10, 2023, with family involvement.

  • The complainant later alleged coercion, and filed another case in Prayagraj on December 14.

  • She had also filed a rape case on November 2, claiming her consent was manipulated.

Court’s Stand

While the court struck down the stalking charge, it upheld other charges, including:

  • Voyeurism,

  • Criminal intimidation, and

  • Offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, since the woman belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, and the accused was aware of her identity.

“Serious allegations need trial scrutiny,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed, emphasizing the complexities of the case stemming from a relationship under the promise of marriage.

The ruling reinforces the importance of legal clarity in distinguishing unlawful behavior from morally questionable private exchanges.