Court holds that forensic evidence raises disputed questions of fact requiring trial, denying petitioners' plea under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in identity theft and obscene material case under IT Act
In a significant judgment dated October 12, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, declined to quash the criminal proceedings against Dheeraj G Kunder and others in a case registered for circulating an obscene video linked to the complainant's Instagram ID, photograph, and contact details through WhatsApp groups. The petitioners had sought relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the charge sheet filed for offences under Sections 66C and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by a woman lecturer at St. Philomina College, Puttur, alleging that unknown persons misused her publicly available Instagram photograph and ID to circulate an indecent video in a WhatsApp group named "Bad Boys" and other groups, causing her harassment through unwanted messages. The petitioners contended that the woman in the video was different from the complainant and thus no offence was made out.
Upon investigation, forensic reports submitted by the State revealed the recovery and sharing of the alleged image and video files via WhatsApp. The reports indicated a similarity in facial features between the complainant's photograph and the female individual shown in the video, though the forensic lab acknowledged certain limitations in its capacity to conclusively compare visual content. WhatsApp chat records demonstrated the transmission of these files between various mobile numbers and groups, supporting the prosecution's case.
The Court emphasized that the mere public availability of the complainant's photograph on social media did not amount to consent for its misuse or association with obscene material. The alleged conduct, if proved, seriously impinged upon the complainant's dignity, privacy, and reputation, exposing her to harassment and unwanted attention. The Court held that these are grave allegations which cannot be summarily dismissed at the threshold stage.
Rejecting the petitioners' claim of mistaken identity, the Court noted that the disputed questions of fact regarding the identity of the woman in the video and the role of the accused require determination at trial. The High Court clarified that exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is not appropriate when the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses offences and necessitates a full trial.
Consequently, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, allowing the prosecution to continue. It also directed the trial court to conduct the trial independently and impartially, uninfluenced by observations made in the quashing petition.
This judgment underlines the judiciary's approach to cases involving identity theft and transmission of obscene material under the IT Act, reinforcing that allegations supported by forensic evidence deserve trial rather than premature quashing.
Bottom Line:
Information Technology Act, 2000 - Quashing of proceedings - Alleged circulation of obscene video along with complainant's Instagram ID, photograph and contact details in WhatsApp groups - Misuse of publicly available social media photograph does not amount to consent for its use in obscene material - Forensic reports showing sharing of files and similarity in facial features raise disputed questions of fact - Such issues cannot be decided in petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Charge sheet not quashed.
Statutory provision(s): Information Technology Act, 2000 Sections 66C, 67; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482
Dheeraj G Kunder v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3012526
