Introduction:

The present case, B K Diganth v. State of Karnataka & Another, came before the Karnataka High Court and raised serious concerns about privacy, dignity, and safety of women in public spaces, particularly in the digital age. The matter was heard by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who refused to quash criminal proceedings against the accused allegedly operating an Instagram account titled “Bangalore Metro Chicks.”

The accused, a 27-year-old accountant, was arrested in May 2025 on allegations of recording and posting objectionable, non-consensual videos of women commuting in the Bengaluru Metro. The account reportedly had substantial online traction, with thousands of followers and high engagement on social media platforms.

The criminal proceedings were initiated through a suo motu complaint by the Banashankari Police Station and included charges under Sections 78(2) (stalking) and 238(C) (furnishing false information) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which deals with the publication of obscene material online.

At the stage of summons before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, the accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. However, the Court refused to entertain the plea, making strong oral observations regarding the safety of women and the misuse of digital platforms.

This case stands at the intersection of criminal law, gender justice, and cyber ethics, highlighting the urgent need for accountability in online conduct and protection of individual dignity in public spaces.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

The petitioner’s counsel sought quashing of the criminal proceedings on multiple grounds, primarily focusing on the absence of any legally sustainable offence. It was argued that the allegations against the petitioner were exaggerated and did not meet the threshold required to constitute offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or the Information Technology Act.

A key argument advanced by the defence was that the content posted on the Instagram account did not amount to “obscene material” within the meaning of Section 67 of the IT Act. The counsel submitted that merely capturing videos of individuals in public spaces, without explicit obscenity, does not attract criminal liability.

The petitioner also contended that there was no evidence of stalking or harassment as defined under Section 78(2) of the BNS. It was argued that the videos were not targeted at any specific individual and were not intended to cause harm or distress.

Another significant contention raised was regarding the procedural aspect of the case. The defence pointed out that the investigating officer himself had initiated the complaint, raising concerns about impartiality and fairness in the investigation. It was argued that such a situation could lead to bias and should be considered a ground for quashing the proceedings.

The petitioner further emphasized that the case was at a preliminary stage and that continuation of the proceedings would cause undue hardship and reputational damage. It was urged that the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments on Behalf of the State:

The State opposed the petition, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations and the broader societal implications of such conduct. It was argued that the petitioner’s actions constituted a clear violation of the privacy and dignity of women, who were recorded without their consent and subjected to public exposure on social media platforms.

The prosecution contended that the act of capturing and disseminating such videos amounted to harassment and stalking, particularly when done repeatedly and with the intent of attracting public attention. It was submitted that the digital nature of the offence amplified its impact, as the content could be widely shared and permanently accessible.

The State also argued that the question of whether the material was “obscene” or whether the ingredients of the offence were fully satisfied is a matter to be determined during trial. At the stage of quashing, the Court should not conduct a detailed examination of evidence but should only assess whether a prima facie case exists.

With regard to the procedural objection, the State maintained that the police are empowered to initiate suo motu proceedings in appropriate cases, especially when public interest is involved. The fact that the investigating officer filed the complaint did not, by itself, vitiate the proceedings.

The prosecution further emphasized the need to send a strong message against such behaviour, arguing that failure to act decisively would embolden similar conduct and undermine public safety.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing the submissions of both parties, the Karnataka High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings and dismissed the petition. The Court’s decision was accompanied by strong oral observations reflecting its concern for the safety and dignity of women.

At the outset, the Court made it clear that it was not inclined to entertain the plea in light of the nature of the allegations. Justice M. Nagaprasanna expressed deep concern over the conduct attributed to the petitioner, particularly the act of recording and sharing videos of women without their consent.

In a strongly worded remark, the Court questioned the mindset behind such actions and highlighted the broader issue of women’s safety in public spaces. The Court observed that such behaviour contributes to an environment where women feel unsafe even in places like public transport, which are expected to be secure.

Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on technical and procedural grounds, the Court categorically stated that technicalities cannot override the substance of the offence. It emphasized that the time has come for courts to move beyond narrow technical defences in cases involving serious violations of personal dignity and privacy.

The Court rejected the argument that the absence of explicit obscenity negated the offence. It observed that the act of capturing and sharing images or videos of women without consent, especially in a manner that objectifies them, raises serious legal and ethical concerns.

On the issue of the investigating officer being the complainant, the Court did not find any merit in the objection. It held that such procedural aspects cannot be used to shield the accused from facing trial, particularly when the allegations disclose a prima facie case.

The Court also underscored the importance of allowing the trial process to unfold, noting that questions regarding the sufficiency of evidence and the applicability of specific provisions can be addressed at the appropriate stage.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court. The decision reflects a clear judicial stance that acts undermining the safety and dignity of women will not be trivialized or dismissed on technical grounds.