Section 354-D of IPC reads as under:-
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:
{Para 17}
18. It is apparent from the bare perusal of the Section
that a person should have followed a woman or contacted such
woman to foster personal interaction or should have monitored
the use by the woman of the internet, email or any other form of
electronic communication. The case of the informant is that
petitioner No.1 has installed a CCTV camera and she suspects
that petitioner No.1 and his son are watching her with the help of
the CCTV camera. There is no proof that the CCTV Camera is
directed towards the house of the informant and it is merely a
suspicion. Further, there is no proof that the petitioners/accused
had contacted the informant to foster a personal relationship.
The petitioner nowhere stated any attempt was made to contact
her to foster any personal relationship with her. The informant
did not state that she was using the internet, e-mail or any other
form of electronic communication and petitioner No.1 was
monitoring such activity. Therefore, the contents of FIR do not
satisfy the ingredients of Section 354-D of IPC. It was laid down
by Kerala High Court in Jai Prakash Vs. Shiva Devi 2023 Kerala
37594 that merely calling a woman on the phone does not satisfy
the ingredients of Section 354-D unless there is an attempt to
foster personal interaction.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 993 of 2022
Sumehar Chand Narwal and others Vs State of H.P. and others
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Date of Decision: 10.01.2024.
Print Page