The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that posting objectionable content on social media with the intention to defame or harass a woman can constitute serious offences under the Indian Penal Code — specifically, “stalking” under Section 354-D and “assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty” under Section 354. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande declined to quash the FIR and ensuing criminal proceedings, dismissing the attempt to treat the allegations as frivolous by invoking the Court’s powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The case originated from a complaint by a married woman who alleged that the accused — a man she had known before her marriage — began posting objectionable and defamatory content on her social-media accounts after she rejected his proposals. She claimed the harassment continued even after her marriage, undermining her dignity and threatening her marital life. On one occasion, the accused reportedly arrived at her home with a bottle of poison, threatened suicide, and attempted to intimidate her. The woman argued that this conduct — persistently posting defamatory content online and making threats — constituted stalking and an offence against her modesty.
The accused countered by claiming there had been a prior relationship; he further alleged that he had extended a loan to the woman’s family on the understanding that marriage would follow. He contended that the defamation complaint was a false, retaliatory move triggered by his demand for repayment of the loan. He also pointed to an earlier private complaint he had filed against the woman and her family for alleged cheating and intimidation, thereby characterizing the FIR before the Court as malicious and vexatious.
Rejecting these contentions, the High Court observed that a prior acquaintance or financial transactions do not entitle anyone to a “license” to defame or harass a woman. It reviewed the FIR and the objectionable social media posts, and found that the facts sufficiently disclosed prima facie offences under Sections 354 and 354-D of the IPC. The Court held that repeated online harassment, defamatory postings and the threat of suicide on the eve of the woman’s marriage clearly went beyond mere expression of grievance and constituted criminal conduct warranting full investigation.
The Court emphasised that the powers under Section 482 of CrPC are to be used sparingly. They are not designed to shield offenders from future prosecution merely on the ground that allegations involve personal disputes or prior relationships. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie case made out, the Court refused to quash the FIR or stay the criminal proceedings.
The decision reaffirms that modern norms of dignity, privacy, and safety must shape the interpretation of criminal law in the digital era. Online acts of harassment — including defamatory posts, threats or repeated unwanted advances — are not beyond the reach of criminal accountability merely because they are mediated through social media.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.