Karnataka HC Dismisses FIR Against Student for Instagram DM
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a college student accused of voyeurism, stalking, and outraging the modesty of a woman following a private Instagram message in which he complimented his classmate as “pretty.” Justice M. Nagaprasanna presided over the case and determined that the conversation did not fulfill the criteria for the alleged offenses. The Court emphasized that allowing the investigation to proceed would constitute an abuse of legal process.
“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 noted in its observations, reflecting on the nature of the communication between the students.
Case Background and Legal Proceedings
The petitioner, a 20-year-old college student, had sent a direct message on Instagram to his 21-year-old classmate, complimenting her appearance using what the Court described as “Gen Z lingo.” This private exchange was shown to the complainant’s father, a senior IPS officer, leading to the registration of an FIR against the student. The petitioner argued that the criminal proceedings severely impacted his career, particularly affecting his prospects as a State-level cricketer.
During the investigation, police reportedly seized the petitioner’s laptop and mobile phone, an action he claimed was conducted without proper legal procedure. The High Court had previously stayed further investigation into the case.
Arguments and Court’s Rationale
Representing the petitioner, Advocate Nidhishree BV contended that the case arose from an innocuous conversation between classmates. She highlighted that the complainant had acknowledged the comment with a “thanks” before further messages were exchanged. She argued that despite the benign nature of the conversation, the complainant’s father pursued criminal charges, resulting in accusations of voyeurism, stalking, and privacy violations under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.
More Read
The High Court Government Pleader opposed the plea, arguing that the student’s status as a classmate did not entitle him to comment on the complainant’s appearance and advocated for the continuation of the police investigation.
Justice Nagaprasanna, after reviewing the Instagram chats, concluded that the prosecution relied solely on a private conversation. He remarked, “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 Court determined that the exchange was private and not made publicly, and as such, did not meet the legal definitions for the alleged crimes.
Conclusion and Court Order
The Court held that the conversation did not constitute the offenses of outraging modesty, stalking, or voyeurism and remarked that criminalizing such student interactions would be an overreach of legal processes. The Court further found that one of the words used might have been inappropriate but should not lead to criminal action in this context.
More Read
Ultimately, the Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR, concluding that continuing the investigation would jeopardize the student’s future and result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court ordered the immediate return of the petitioner’s seized electronic devices, if still held by police.
