Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court, in TJ v. State of Karnataka & Another (WP No. 34898 of 2024, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259), delivered a significant judgment on the limits of criminal law in the context of private social media conversations. Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that a private Instagram direct message (DM) exchanged between two college classmates, in which a male student complimented his female classmate using what the Court described as “Gen Z lingo,” did not constitute the offences of stalking, voyeurism, or outraging the modesty of a woman. Emphasising that criminal law cannot be invoked for every inappropriate or immature expression exchanged in a private conversation, the Court quashed the FIR and observed that permitting such prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The case arose from a petition filed by a college student challenging the registration of an FIR against him based solely on a private Instagram message sent to his female classmate. According to the petitioner, both he and the complainant were classmates and friends, aged 21 and 20 years respectively. After receiving the message complimenting her appearance, the complainant allegedly showed it to her father, who was a serving IPS officer. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.
Based on the complaint, the police registered offences under Sections 74, 77 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 66A and 67D of the Information Technology Act. During the investigation, the petitioner’s laptop and mobile phone were allegedly seized. Aggrieved by the criminal proceedings, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.
The case raised an important legal question regarding whether a private compliment sent through a social media platform, even if expressed in informal or inappropriate language, could satisfy the essential ingredients of serious criminal offences relating to stalking, voyeurism and outraging the modesty of a woman.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner contended that the criminal proceedings were wholly misconceived and based upon a complete misunderstanding of the contents of the private Instagram conversation. It was submitted that the message merely complimented the complainant’s appearance and did not contain any threat, obscenity, repeated harassment, sexual demand, or conduct capable of constituting any criminal offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or the Information Technology Act.
The petitioner emphasised that the conversation was entirely private, taking place through Instagram’s direct messaging feature between two classmates who already knew each other. According to him, there was no element of persistent communication, surveillance, following, intimidation or any conduct that could amount to stalking. Likewise, there was no allegation of secretly observing, recording or capturing any private act of the complainant that could attract the offence of voyeurism.
It was further argued that the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman were also completely absent. At best, the message represented an immature compliment expressed in contemporary youth slang, which could not justify invoking serious criminal provisions.
The petitioner also questioned the manner in which the investigation had been conducted. He alleged that his laptop and mobile phone had been seized without following the prescribed legal procedure. It was further contended that the complainant’s father being a serving IPS officer had influenced the manner in which the investigation proceeded. During the hearing, this allegation prompted the Court to orally observe that when a police officer’s family is the complainant, procedural safeguards are often ignored.
Another important aspect highlighted by the petitioner was the severe prejudice caused by the criminal proceedings. He informed the Court that he was a state-level cricketer who was on the verge of representing the Tamil Nadu Under-19 cricket team when the FIR was registered. According to him, continuation of the criminal case had seriously jeopardised both his academic career and sporting future.
The State opposed the petition for quashing. The High Court Government Pleader argued that irrespective of whether the parties were classmates, the petitioner had no authority to comment upon the complainant’s physical appearance. It was submitted that such unsolicited remarks were capable of causing discomfort and therefore justified investigation into the offences alleged in the FIR.
The prosecution maintained that the investigation ought to continue so that all relevant facts could be examined before determining whether the offences alleged were made out.
Court’s Judgment:
After examining the contents of the impugned Instagram message and considering the rival submissions, Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the writ petition and quashed the criminal proceedings.
The Court noted that the entire prosecution rested upon a single private Instagram direct message exchanged between two individuals. Unlike a public social media post intended for widespread circulation, the communication was confined exclusively to the petitioner and the complainant. This distinction, the Court observed, assumed considerable importance while determining whether the alleged offences were attracted.
Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the petitioner had complimented the complainant’s appearance using language commonly employed by members of the present generation. While acknowledging that the particular expression used by the petitioner may have been inappropriate or immature, the Court remarked that such terminology reflected the conversational style popularly associated with “Gen Z lingo.”
The Court emphasised that criminal liability cannot arise merely because a compliment is expressed in language that may not be considered refined or socially desirable. Criminal law requires satisfaction of specific statutory ingredients, and those ingredients were conspicuously absent in the present case.
Examining the offence of stalking, the Court held that there was no allegation that the petitioner had repeatedly contacted, monitored, followed or harassed the complainant despite her unwillingness. A solitary private message complimenting someone’s appearance could not by itself constitute stalking within the meaning of the law.
Similarly, the Court found that the offence of voyeurism was entirely inapplicable. There was no allegation that the petitioner had secretly observed, photographed, recorded or disseminated any image relating to the complainant’s private activities. Without these foundational elements, invocation of the offence of voyeurism was legally unsustainable.
The Court also rejected the allegation relating to outraging the modesty of a woman. Justice Nagaprasanna observed that although certain words used in the message might be regarded as inappropriate, they did not amount to an act intended to insult or outrage the complainant’s modesty. The message merely described her as “beautiful” using contemporary slang and contained nothing capable of attracting the penal provisions invoked by the investigating agency.
The Court therefore concluded that permitting investigation to continue on the basis of such allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Criminal prosecution, the Court observed, should not become a tool for penalising every instance of socially awkward or immature communication between young adults.
The judgment also took into consideration the wider consequences of the criminal proceedings. The Court recorded that the petitioner was a promising young sportsperson whose future opportunities had already been adversely affected due to the registration of the FIR. Justice Nagaprasanna observed that continuation of an unwarranted criminal investigation had the potential to permanently damage the educational and professional prospects of a young student.
While considering the petitioner’s grievance regarding seizure of electronic devices, the Court directed the Investigating Officer to immediately return the petitioner’s laptop and mobile phone if they had indeed remained in police custody for the past two years pursuant to the impugned FIR.
The judgment also reflects the Court’s concern regarding procedural fairness in criminal investigations. During the hearing, the Court orally remarked that procedural safeguards often appear to be overlooked where the complainant belongs to a police family. Although this observation did not form the substantive basis of the final decision, it highlighted the importance of ensuring impartiality and strict adherence to legal procedure irrespective of the status of the parties involved.
Ultimately, the High Court held that the facts disclosed in the complaint did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 74, 77 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or the provisions of the Information Technology Act invoked by the police. Since continuation of the investigation would constitute an abuse of the criminal justice process, the FIR was quashed in its entirety.
The decision serves as an important reminder that criminal law must be invoked with restraint, particularly in cases involving private interpersonal communication on digital platforms. While inappropriate language may invite social criticism or personal disapproval, it does not automatically become a criminal offence unless the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence are clearly established. The judgment also reinforces that courts must carefully distinguish between conduct that is merely impolite or immature and conduct that genuinely warrants criminal prosecution. In doing so, the Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that criminal law cannot be stretched beyond its legitimate purpose, especially where such prosecution threatens to irreparably damage the future of young individuals without any legal justification.