The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, 21 July quashed a criminal case against a 20-year-old college student who had sent a private Instagram direct message calling his female classmate 'pretty' and 'beautiful', ruling that such a compliment in a personal conversation does not constitute stalking, voyeurism, or outraging the modesty of a woman. The judgment, delivered by a single-judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, drew a firm line between informal digital communication and criminal conduct.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a 20-year-old student, and the complainant, his 21-year-old classmate, were acquainted and studied at the same college. The private Instagram exchange, in which the petitioner described the complainant in complimentary terms, was later shown to her father — a senior IPS officer — reportedly by the complainant herself. Following this, an FIR was registered against the student. Police booked him under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.

What the Court Observed

Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the conversation was entirely private and never entered the public domain. The court characterised the language used as typical of what it termed 'Gen Z lingo' — the informal communication style commonly adopted by students today.

'The chat is not public. It is a chat between two individuals. The language used is the one students of this day use. That cannot become a crime,' the court stated.

The Bench further held that a private compliment, on its own, cannot satisfy the legal ingredients of stalking, voyeurism, or outraging modesty — offences that require a pattern of conduct or deliberate intent to harass or intimidate.

Court's Ruling and Directions

The High Court held that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It also cautioned that prosecuting young individuals for such exchanges could cause lasting, disproportionate harm to their futures.

The court consequently quashed the FIR in its entirety and directed the investigating officer to immediately return all seized materials — including electronic devices — to the petitioner.

Broader Legal Significance

The ruling arrives at a time when courts across India have been increasingly called upon to distinguish between online harassment and constitutionally protected private expression. Notably, Section 66A of the IT Act — under which the student was partially booked — was struck down by the Supreme Court of India in 2015 in the landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, raising questions about why it continues to be invoked by police. This case adds to a growing body of jurisprudence urging restraint in applying criminal law to informal digital communication between individuals who are known to each other.

The verdict is likely to be cited in similar cases where FIRs have been filed over private social media exchanges, and may prompt calls for clearer police guidelines on when digital communication crosses the threshold into criminal conduct.