The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against a student who called a classmate “pretty” in an Instagram DM, holding that Gen Z lingo in a private chat cannot be criminalised.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a criminal case registered against a college student who was booked for voyeurism, stalking and outraging the modesty of a woman after he sent his classmate a private Instagram message describing her as pretty, holding that a personal exchange in the idiom of today’s students cannot be turned into a crime.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition, ruling that the private conversation between the two classmates disclosed none of the ingredients of the offences alleged, and that permitting the investigation to run its course would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Examining the nature of the exchange, the Court observed that it was a one-to-one message rather than anything placed in the public domain,
“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.”
According to the record, the petitioner a 20-year-old sent a private Instagram direct message to his 21-year-old classmate, remarking on a picture she had posted and complimenting her appearance in what the Court characterised as “Gen Z lingo.”
His counsel submitted that the petitioner had commented pretty on the picture, that the complainant had replied thanks, and that a further message followed.
The message was later shown to the complainant’s father, a senior IPS officer, following which an FIR came to be registered. The petitioner was booked for voyeurism, stalking and insulting the modesty of a woman, along with an alleged violation of privacy under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Nidhishree B.V. argued that the entire prosecution had sprung from an innocuous conversation between two classmates. She submitted that the case had gravely affected the young man’s prospects, pointing out that he was a State-level cricketer who was to represent the Under-19 side in Tamil Nadu at the relevant time. Counsel further contended that his laptop and mobile phone had been seized and had remained in police custody for nearly two years without adherence to the prescribed procedure, and that the High Court had earlier stayed further investigation.
Opposing the plea, the Government Pleader submitted that the fact that the two were classmates did not entitle the petitioner to comment on the complainant’s appearance, and urged that the investigation be permitted to continue.
Having perused the Instagram chats, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the prosecution rested entirely on the private conversation between the two students.
Highlighting that the message was personal rather than public, the Court 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 held that the language reflected the way present-day students communicate, and that an isolated exchange of this nature could not make out the offences of outraging modesty, stalking or voyeurism.
It found that there was neither any act of stalking nor of voyeurism, nor could the messages be said to insult the complainant’s modesty. While acknowledging that one of the words used may have been inappropriate, the Court held that such usage by students could not be criminalised on the facts of the case.
The Court observed,
“If this chat can lead to all that, it would, on the face of it, become an abuse of the process of law,”
Concluding that allowing the investigation to continue would not only imperil the student’s career but also occasion a miscarriage of justice, the Court quashed the FIR.
It further directed the investigating officer to return forthwith all articles seized from the petitioner, including his electronic devices, if they were still in police custody.
