The court ruled that allegations did not constitute stalking under Section 354-D as the intent was to reclaim a loan, not to foster personal interaction.

ORDER :

These are Miscellaneous Cases preferred by the accused persons in Crime no.47/2022 and Crime no.321/2023, both of Kodakara Police Station. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, both these crimes are not maintainable, even assuming the allegations in the F.I.S. are presumed to be true.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

3. In Annexure-A5 F.I.S. in the first crime (Crime no.47/2022), registered on 17.01.2022, the specific allegations are to the effect that the petitioner/accused and the defacto complainant were friends, during which time they used to take photos together, besides conversing with each other over phone on several occasions. They were friends for a period of seven months, is the claim. Thereafter, the allegation is that the petitioner/accused spoke ill about the defacto complainant's mother and other family members, for which reason, the defacto complainant decided to stop her relationship with the petitioner. Infuriated by this, the petitioner/accused demanded back Rupees six lakhs given to the defacto complainant, failing which, the photos of both together, as also, their audio clips was threatened be aired to the social media, besides being shared to her relatives. Two weeks before the date of Annexure-A5 complaint in Crl.M.C.No.7446/2022, one such audio clip, along with photos were forwarded to the sister of the defacto complainant and also to her business partner, by name Anoop. It was also forwarded to her husband, Gosh Babu, as voice message. The further allegation is that the petitioner/accused threatened the defacto complainant saying that the obscene photos and videos of the defacto complainant and her daughter are in the custody of the petitioner and that the same will be aired in the social media. It is alleged that there is no financial relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and that he is threatening and circulating the photos only because of his animosity in stopping the relationship with him. In the backdrop of the above allegations, the first crime/Crime no.47/2022 was registered for offences under Sections 354-D, 506 and 509 of the Penal Code.

4. The allegations in the second crime, i.e., Crime no.321/2023, are as extracted here-below:

5. In the second crime/Crime No.321/2023, the offences alleged are under Sections 354-D and 294(b) of the Penal Code and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act .

6. This Court notice that the offence under Section 354-D is not attracted in the given facts. Section 354-D is extracted here-below:

“354-D. Stalking.--(1) Any man who--

(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or

(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that--

(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or

(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or

(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either descriptio