‘Calling classmate pretty is no crime’: K’taka HC quashes FIR against student

‘Calling classmate pretty is no crime’: K’taka HC quashes FIR against student (Photo: IANS)

Bengaluru, July 21 (IANS) The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday quashed an FIR filed against a 20-year-old college student who had sent a private Instagram message complimenting his female classmate, holding that the use of “Gen Z lingo” in a personal conversation does not amount to stalking, voyeurism or outraging the modesty of a woman.

A single-judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a student complimented a classmate in a private exchange. He warned that such prosecutions could have a lasting impact on the future of young individuals.

The case pertained to an Instagram conversation between the petitioner and his 21-year-old classmate, who were friends and studied in the same college. The petitioner had sent her a direct message describing her as “pretty” and “beautiful” in what the Court termed “Gen Z lingo.”

According to court records, the private message was later shown to the complainant’s father, a senior IPS officer, following which an FIR was registered against the student. Police subsequently booked him under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.

While hearing the matter, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the conversation was not in the public domain and that the language used reflected the communication style commonly adopted by present-day students.

“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 observed.

The High Court held that a compliment exchanged in a private conversation cannot, by itself, constitute offences such as stalking, voyeurism or outraging the modesty of a woman.

It further remarked that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law and could unnecessarily jeopardise the petitioner’s future.

Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and directed the investigating officer to immediately return all seized materials, including electronic devices, to the petitioner.

--IANS

mka/dan