A private Instagram conversation between two college classmates turned into a criminal case, but the Karnataka High Court has now stepped in and quashed the proceedings, observing that everyday communication among youngsters cannot automatically be treated as a criminal offence.
The case involved a 20-year-old college student who had sent messages to his female classmate on Instagram. The conversation reportedly began after he commented “Pretty” on her picture, followed by a private exchange between the two.
Based on the messages, a criminal case was registered against the student for alleged offences including stalking, voyeurism, outraging the modesty of a woman, and violation of privacy provisions under the Information Technology Act.
The complaint was filed by the student’s classmate’s father, who is a senior IPS officer.
During the investigation, police reportedly seized the student’s mobile phone and laptop. The student approached the High Court, stating that the criminal proceedings had severely affected his career prospects. He submitted that he was a state-level cricketer and was set to represent the Tamil Nadu Under-19 team at the time.
The student’s counsel argued that the entire case arose from a private conversation between two classmates and that the messages did not constitute any criminal offence. It was contended that continuing the proceedings would cause serious damage to the student’s future.
However, the prosecution opposed the plea and argued that being classmates did not give the student the right to comment on the complainant’s appearance. The government advocate maintained that the police investigation should be allowed to continue.
After examining the Instagram chat, Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court observed that the conversation was a private exchange between two individuals and not a public interaction.
The Court noted that the language used reflected the way students communicate in the present generation and described it as “Gen Z lingo”. The Court observed that such language, in the context of a private conversation, cannot by itself be converted into a criminal offence.
The High Court further held that the messages did not reveal any act of stalking, voyeurism, or conduct that amounted to outraging the modesty of a woman.
The Court observed that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR against the student.
The investigating officer was also directed to return all items seized from the student, including his electronic devices such as his mobile phone and laptop, if they were still in police custody.
The verdict has sparked fresh discussion on how private digital conversations among young people should be viewed in the age of social media and changing communication styles.
