'Intent To Foster Personal Interaction' Essential Ingredient Of Stalking, Mere Threat Or Abuse Doesn't Attract S.354D IPC: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a mere threat or abuse by a man towards a woman would not attract the offence of stalking under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice K. Babu added that to qualify as stalking, a man must have repeatedly followed a woman and made contact or attempted to contact her, despite clear indications of disinterest from the woman, particularly demonstrating sexual interest or lewd behaviour by the man.

"In order to attract Section 354-D(1)(i) of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that a man followed a woman and contacted or attempted to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman. The Section takes in acts revealing sexual interest or lewd acts of man. Any act whereby a man willfully contacts or attempts to contact a woman in such a manner as to damage the virtue that attaches to a female owing to her gender attracts the offence of Stalking." 

The petitioner in this case was employed as Assistant Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer. The allegation against him was that he repeatedly called and threatened the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer (respondent 1 herein). The respondent also contended that the petitioner sent her WhatsApp messages with the intent to disturb her. 

The respondent thereby lodged a First Information Statement following which the petitioner was charged under Sections 354D (stalking) and 509 (insulting modesty of a woman) of IPC. 

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the Final Report filed against him and all related further proceedings. 

Advocate M.P Madhavankutty and Shijoy John Mathew appearing for the petitioner contended that the offence of ‘stalking’ is attracted only when a man contacts or attempts to contact a woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest. It was also submitted that the intention of the legislature is to implicate those who maintain “behavioural patterns” of sexual offenders. 

Advocates Adithya Rajeev and Sreedev U appearing for the respondent argued that repeated attempts to contact a woman over the phone or in any other manner attract the offence under Section 354D. Public Prosecutor Sanal P Raj also supported this argument.

The Bench analysed Section 354D and its legislative history to determine if the petitioner's conduct qualified as the offence of stalking. Upon examining the Parliament debates, it was found that the vital ingredient was to foster personal interaction despite a clear indication of disinterest by the woman. 

The Court further produced an excerpt from the parliamentary debates on the Criminal Law [Amendment] Bill, 2013 to highlight the legislative caution against the misuse of this provision by unscrupulous persons. 

"A threat or abuse by a man towards a woman who is at loggerheads with him, as in the present case, would not attract the offence of stalking. The concern of the Legislature regarding the possibility of misuse of the penal provision is also relevant here."

For these reasons, the Division Bench found that the petitioner had not contacted the respondent with the intent to foster personal interaction and thus does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 354-D.

Regarding the offence under Section 509 IPC, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prima facie establish that the petitioner intended to insult the modesty of the woman in question. 

As such, the plea was allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner were quashed. 

Case Title: Jayaprakash P.P v. Sheeba Revi 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 313

Click Here To Read/Download The Order