KARNATAKA | 14TH JULY 2025 – In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court recently ruled that merely sending text messages containing foul language does not constitute the offence of stalking under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This observation was made while quashing the charge under Section 354D IPC against a man named Abhishek Mishra in the case Abhishek Mishra v State of Karnataka & Anr.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Abhishek Mishra had approached the High Court challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against him under various provisions of the IPC, the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The complainant, a woman, alleged that Mishra had met her during UPSC coaching classes in Delhi. She claimed that after promising marriage, Mishra recorded her private videos and began blackmailing her by threatening to publish them on social media platforms.
Mishra, on the other hand, contended that the relationship was consensual. He argued that the FIR was an abuse of legal process and asserted that talks of marriage had taken place, including a marriage registration, which the woman later claimed was forced.
COURT’S OBSERVATIONS ON STALKING CHARGE
Justice M Nagaprasanna, while partly allowing Mishra’s plea, made crucial observations regarding the charge of stalking.
“Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 354D i.e., stalking is concerned, the allegation against the petitioner and the complainant is of sexual acts. Mere sending messages between the two or exchange of messages which contained profanity would not amount to stalking. Therefore, the offence of stalking is loosely laid against the petitioner,” the Court stated.
OUTCOME OF THE PETITION
While quashing the offence of stalking, the Court declined to dismiss the proceedings against Mishra under other charges, including those under the SC/ST Act, IT Act, and IPC provisions concerning voyeurism and criminal intimidation.
Justice Nagaprasanna further noted:
“The case at hand, as observed hereinabove, except the offence of stalking, revolves round seriously disputed questions of fact, which would require further proceedings before the concerned court. Therefore, I decline to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to obliterate the proceedings qua all offences except the offence under Section 354D — stalking, as permitting further trial qua the said offence would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of law.”
REPRESENTATION
Advocate Monica Patil appeared for the petitioner, Abhishek Mishra. Additional Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha and Advocate MB Ravikumar represented the respondents.
