Foul language doesn’t mean stalking, rules Karnataka high court | Bengaluru News

Bengaluru: Using swear words at each other in private messaging between two individuals could be indecent, but it does not necessarily mean ‘stalking’, Karnataka high court has ruled, striking down charges of stalking against an Allahabad man who faced allegations of voyeurism and criminal intimidation.Justice M Nagaprasanna, who delivered the ruling, emphasised that for a charge of stalking to be legally valid, it must meet specific criteria laid out in Section 354D of IPC.The section defines ‘stalking’ as a man following or contacting a woman repeatedly to foster personal interaction, despite clear disinterest from the woman; or monitoring her use of electronic communication.“In the present case, the allegation is loosely laid,” the judge noted, adding: “The exchange of messages, even those containing profanity, does not by itself constitute stalking.”BackgroundThe case involves a Bengaluru-based woman and the accused, who had met in 2022 while preparing for their UPSC exams in Delhi. Their interaction, which was initially based on sharing study materials, gradually blossomed into an intimate relationship. The woman used to stay at a rented accommodation in Delhi, arranged by the accused.However, following a breakup, the woman filed a police complaint in Bengaluru in October 2023, alleging that the man had secretly recorded private footage of her and threatened to circulate it on social media.The case invoked multiple charges under the IPC and Information Technology Act, with additional sections added under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community. The complainant even filed a rape case against the accused in Prayagraj on November 2, 2023.The accused man, though, insisted they were in a consensual relationship.Despite the allegations and counter-allegations, the couple’s marriage was registered on November 10, reportedly facilitated by their families.However, the complainant later alleged that her consent was obtained under duress and she filed another complaint on December 14, 2023, in Prayagraj.Courtroom dramaPartially allowing the petition, the court upheld multiple charges against the accused, including voyeurism and offences under the Atrocities Act, given the accused’s awareness of the complainant’s ST status. The disputed facts, though, required trial resolution.“The complaint details several serious allegations against the accused, reportedly committed under the promise of marriage. The consensual sexual relationship between both the parties is documented. Regarding the stalking charges, the complainant’s allegations primarily concern sexual acts under marriage promises,” the judge noted in his order while pointing that the offence of stalking was loosely laid against the petitioner.