Shared for Service, Not for Personal Use: Why Misusing a Phone Number Can Raise Legal Concerns Under India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

 A mobile number is often shared casually in daily life — to book a cab, receive a delivery, complete a digital payment, or obtain a service update. Yet the fact that a number is visible in a transaction does not make it freely available for personal use. Under India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, a mobile number can constitute personal data when it relates to an identifiable individual, and its use must remain tied to a lawful purpose.

This means that if a number is shared for a limited purpose, such as ride coordination, billing, delivery, or customer support, it should not ordinarily be reused for personal messaging, unrelated marketing, or informal follow-up without a valid legal basis. The law is gradually reinforcing a simple principle: access to personal data is not the same as permission to use it however one wishes.

Print Page

Stalking under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

 Stalking under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is defined in Section 78, which specifically addresses offenses against women. The law provides a comprehensive definition that covers both physical and digital forms of stalking behavior.

Definition of Stalking

Under Section 78 of BNS, stalking occurs when any man:

• 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

• Monitors the use by a woman of the internet, e-mail or any other form of electronic communication

Print Page

Whether a person can be held guilty for an offence of stalking if he installs CCTV camera towards the house of a lady?

 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

Notes on Sexual offences against woman as per Amendment Act 2013

Criminal law amendment Act 2013 has expanded protection to woman against sexual offences and several new offences are brought on statute book.

Earlier provisions dealing with offence of Rape namely

S 375,376,376A,376B,376C and 376D have been substituted by new sections which are as under:

Definition of Rape(S 375)

A man is said to commit rape if he-

a) penetrates his penis,to any extent,into the vagina,mouth,urethra,or anus of a woman or make her to do so with him or any other person;or

b)insert,to any extent,any object or a part of the body,not being the penis,into the vagina,the urethra or anus of woman or make her to do so with him or any other person;or

c)manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration in to the vagina,the urethra or anus of woman or make her to do so with him or any other person;or

d)applies his mouth to vagina,anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person,-

Print Page

Whether offence of stalking by boyfriend to girlfriend can be quashed by high court?

The factual matrix of the present case is that the
complainant/respondent no2 knew the petitioner since school days and
used to meet with him and was in a relationship with him, though they
used to have some quarrels now and then. The complainant now, after
having some disputes with the petitioner does not wish to continue
being in a relationship with the petitioner and informed him of the
same, subsequent to which the petitioner abused the complainant in
filthy language and also threatened her with her life. Further, the
petitioner allegedly also threatened the complainant with making some
of her pictures public which he has in his possession.
The complainant after facing immense agony on account of the
behavior of the petitioner got registered the FIR in the present matter.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute
between the parties has been settled with the accused/petitioner.
Respondent affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. Now no
dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of
the FIR in question may be brought to an end. Statement of the
respondent has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that
she has entered into a compromise deed with the petitioner and has
settled all the disputes with him. She further stated that she has no
objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
 It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not
affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace
and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.
In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in
entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is
compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case ofB.S.
Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not
compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of
securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,
section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts
and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were noncompoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 354D is a noncompoundable
offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the
FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts
and circumstances of the case so warrant.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1988/2017
Dated: May 26th, 2017
YUMNAM MARJIT SINGH v  STATE & ANR 
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

Print Page