In a significant ruling on the scope of inherent judicial powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Karnataka High Court recently declined to quash criminal proceedings arising from a deeply personal dispute between two UPSC aspirants, involving allegations of voyeurism, caste-based offences, and criminal intimidation.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while partially allowing the petition filed by Abhishek Mishra, quashed proceedings related to the charge of stalking (Section 354D IPC) but held that the remaining allegations, including offences under Section 354C IPC (voyeurism) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, warranted adjudication at trial.

Background

The petitioner and the complainant, Pinki Sharma, met in Delhi in January 2022 while preparing for the civil services examination and later entered into a relationship. The petitioner claimed that they were legally married in November 2023, but the complainant disputed this assertion.

Following the deterioration of their relationship, Sharma lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had recorded private videos, issued threats, used caste-based slurs, and intimidated her. An FIR was registered invoking Sections 354-C, 354-D, 504, 506, 509 IPC, Section 66E of the IT Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. After a charge sheet was filed, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings.

Key Observations

• Voyeurism (Section 354C IPC):
  The Court found a prima facie case, observing that the allegations—recording of private content without consent—satisfied the ingredients of voyeurism. Citing precedent, the Court reiterated that capturing images of a woman engaged in a private act without consent falls squarely under this provision.

• Stalking (Section 354D IPC):
  The charge was quashed, with the Court holding that exchange of messages, even if profane, does not constitute stalking in the absence of repeated following or contacting against the will of the woman.

• Other IPC Offences (Sections 504, 506, 509):
  The Court upheld the proceedings, noting that the complaint and charge sheet contained sufficient material for offences of intentional insult, criminal intimidation, and outraging the modesty of a woman.

• Violation of Privacy (Section 66E, IT Act):
  This charge was also sustained as the alleged recording and misuse of intimate content directly attracted the statutory provisions.

• SC/ST Act (Section 3(2)(v)):
  The Court emphasized that the petitioner was aware of the complainant's Scheduled Tribe status, and if the allegations were proven, they would fall within the ambit of the caste-based offence.

The Court held that the factual complexity and seriousness of the allegations warranted a full-fledged trial and that the matter was not suitable for adjudication under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the preliminary stage.

“To dissect witness statements at this stage would prejudice the case before trial,” the Court noted, while also relying on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Accordingly, except for Section 354D IPC, all other charges were allowed to proceed. The Court clarified that its findings were limited to the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and would not impact the merits of the trial.