Youthful Vocabulary Can’t Be Gateway To Criminal Prosecution: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Student Booked For Sending Instagram DM To Girl

The petition before the High Court was filed by a student challenging the registration of a criminal case under Sections 77, 78 and 79 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023) and Sections 66E and 67D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held, “The expression used, may be inappropriate, indiscreet and best avoided. Youthful vocabulary, however, cannot by itself become the gateway to criminal prosecution, unless the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are demonstrably present. The criminal law cannot be employed as a bludgeon to punish every social indiscretion or linguistic impropriety. It must remain reserved for conduct that squarely falls within the four corners of the penal provision.”

Advocate Nidhishree B.V. represented the Appellant while High Court Government Pleader Waheeda M.M. represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner and the second respondent, aged 21 and 20 years, were classmates and friends. The controversy arose on the ground of a solitary exchange over Instagram. The petitioner had sent a direct message to the second respondent complimenting her appearance on a particular day. The message read, “U kinda look so hot in light coloured clothes.” The message, innocuous according to the petitioner, was said to have been shown to the father of the respondent, an Officer of the Indian Police Service in the State.

A case came to be registered against the petitioner, who is stated to be a State-level cricketer and was preparing to represent an Under-19 team in Tamil Nadu. In the course of investigation, his laptop and mobile phone were allegedly seized. The petitioner contended that the seizure was wholly contrary to law and bereft of statutory sanction. The petitioner approached the Court, and further investigation was stayed.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that it was two classmates, two friends chatting, describing how the complainant was beautiful. The petitioner further submitted that if the investigation is permitted, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and jeopardise the career of the student - the petitioner.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the entire edifice of the crime was resting upon a solitary private communication. “It was not a message circulated in the public domain, nor was it published or broadcasted to humiliate respondent No.2. It was a direct communication between two individuals — the petitioner and the complainant”, it added.

The Bench opined that if a solitary private message of this nature was permitted to attract all these offences, the invocation of criminal law would become an abuse of the process of law. “There is no allegation of the petitioner having watched, captured or disseminated any private act so as to constitute voyeurism. There is no allegation of repeated following, monitoring or persistent communication, despite disinterest so as to constitute stalking. Nor does the message, viewed in its setting - and in the backdrop of the relationship between the parties, disclose the deliberate intention necessary to attract the offence of insulting the modesty of a woman”, it further stated.

The Bench was of the view that permitting the investigation to continue would not merely imperil the career of a young student and sportsperson and would permit the process of criminal law itself to become the punishment. “Such continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law and inevitably result in miscarriage of justice”, it stated.

Thus, allowing the writ petition, the Bench quashed the FIR and all the subsequent proceedings.

Cause Title: Thomas Jadan v. State Of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:37991)

Click here to read/download Order