Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of Voyeurism, Stalking For Secretly Clicking Photos Of Woman From His Residence

The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case of voyeurism and stalking against a man booked under Section 354C and D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The man was arrested by the police upon the complaint of a woman who had accused him of secretly taking pictures of her from his residence.

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De quashed the case initiated against the man upon observing that while photographing a woman doing private acts may amount to voyeruism, the act of stalking would require specifc elements to be proven. The Court held:

In the case at hand the allegation leveled against the petitioner/accused is that the accused secretly captured complainant's photographs from his residence while she was standing on the road in front of her residential building. It is also alleged when complainant noticed flash then accused entered into his building. Such allegations do not attract any of the penal provision either under Section 354C or 354D of the IPC in respect of the discussion made hereinabove relating to the essential elements required to constitute those offences.

The complainant filed a written complaint alleging that whenever she with her daughter used to go to school or market or for private tuition, ithe petitioner used to watch and follow them which disturbed her. It was stated that the accused/petitioner captured her photographs/images on his camera and mobile phone on different occasions which was reported to the police from time to time.

On one such occasion, the petitioner allegedly captured photographs/images secretly from his residence, while the complainant was standing on the road in front of her residential building. After noticing a flash when the opposite party no. 2 looked at the residence of the petitioner, then he fled inside the building.

Upon apprehending that the accused/petitioner might have used photographs of the opposite party no. 2 for wrongful purposes, she filed the complaint, after which the petitioner was arrested by the police.

Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the entire dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature and no criminal proceeding should be allowed to proceed further in connection with the case. It was further stated that the facts of the case make it amply clear that the opposite party no. 2 has instituted this proceeding in order to create pressure upon the developer to deliver the other car parking space in favour of her for which they do not have any right, title and interest.

It was argued that the opposite party no. 2 which clearly showed that she was 'hell bent' to use the process of criminal law to harass the petitioner with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance. It was finally argued that no evidence had been furnished by the prosecution to substanitate the claim of the complainant.

Upon hearing both sides, the Court observed that to establish the offences under Section 354C and D, the alleged act must have taken place in some public place as the provision aims to protect the modesty of women in public spheres.

Court said that the essentials of the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the IPC require specific elements to be established for a violation to occur. These elements of Section 354D of the IPC include:- Unwanted Contact, Repetition and Absence of Interest.

In the present case it was held that the allegations levelled against the accused did not prima facie establish the offence punihsable under Sections 354C and D of the IPC.

Accordingly, the court allowed the plea and quashed the charges.

Citaiton: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 169

Case: Satyabrata Barik @ Mithu. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr

Case No: CRR 1124 of 2018

Click here to read order