Singaraju Somasekhar vs State Of Telangana [Telangana HC] : In order to attract Section 354D IPC, the contacting and attempt to contact shall be in respect of outraging the modesty of the woman. The intention here is to continue the relation with the de-facto complainant in spite of clear indication of her disinterest. Here both the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are at loggerheads. The petitioner has been calling the de-facto complainant in order to abuse, threatened etc., and not for any other purpose. Therefore, on perusal of the entire charge sheet, there are no ingredients, which attract the offence under Section 354D IPC. Therefore, the offence under Section 354D IPC cannot be fastened against the petitioner.
Marri Shashikanth Reddy vs State Of Telangana [Telangana HC ]: Section 354-D deals with punishment for stalking. Any man who follows a man 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 2 MSM, J internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking. But in the present case, there was no allegation to attract either to clause (1) or (2) of Section 354-D IPC except alleging that the petitioners abused the 2nd respondent in un-parliamentary language, harassing her and threatening to kill her children. At best the allegations made in the complaint constitute offences punishable under Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 IPC, but not Section 354-D IPC. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 354-D IPC are quashed, while permitting the investigating agency to investigate into the other offences, if any committed. []
Gugulothu Ravindar Naik, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh HC): A perusal of Section 354D IPC would go to show that any man who follows a woman and contacts or tries to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman. The main ingredient in the above provision would go to show that despite the fact that the woman is disinterested, if the man goes on wooing her or keeps on sending messages against her will, then the offence under Section 354 D IPC would attract as against the said person. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no such accsuation. It is, in fact, 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is the person who called up the petitioner/ accused. Thereafter, whenever the accused was sending messages or making calls to her, she was responding to the same without showing any inclination of disinterest. Apparently, going by the contents in the charge sheet, it would go to show that 2nd respondent/defacto complainant was very much interested. She goes to the extent of stating that she had fallen in love with petitioner/accused. ‘Disinterest’ has been defined as ‘detachment and lack of interest’. But, as per the averments contained in the charge sheet, it goes to show that 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant presented the complaint for the reason that the petitioner/accused refused to marry her. When such is the situation, question of stalking would not arise.