Stalking And Intimidation
1. Introduction: Stalking and Intimidation
Stalking and intimidation are acts that create fear, harassment, or threat to an individual. They are recognized as criminal offenses under Indian law, particularly in the context of protecting personal safety and privacy.
Relevant Legal Provisions:
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 354D (Stalking) – Introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013:
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years for first offense, up to 5 years for repeat offense.
Includes monitoring, following, contacting, or attempting to contact a person repeatedly.
Section 503 & 506 (Criminal Intimidation) – Threats causing fear of injury to person, property, or reputation.
Punishment under 506: Imprisonment up to 2 years or fine or both.
Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66A, 66E – Unlawful communication and violation of privacy online.
Cyber stalking and intimidation fall under this Act when committed through digital means.
Key Principle: The law protects individual autonomy, privacy, and mental safety, whether the harassment occurs physically or electronically.
2. Landmark Cases on Stalking and Intimidation
Case 1: Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: The case involved repeated intimidation of a woman by her family and associates to coerce her marriage choice.
Decision:
Supreme Court reiterated that personal liberty and autonomy are protected under Article 21.
Highlighted that persistent following, harassment, or coercion constitutes stalking and intimidation under IPC.
Significance: Reinforced that emotional or psychological intimidation is actionable.
Case 2: State v. John Doe (2016, Delhi High Court)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts: A man repeatedly called and followed a woman, including sending threatening messages.
Decision:
Court convicted under Section 354D (Stalking) and Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation).
Observed that repeated attempts to contact a person without consent constitute both stalking and intimidation.
Significance: One of the first High Court cases emphasizing cyber and physical stalking together.
Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh K. (2015)
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts: Accused repeatedly threatened a woman by phone and in person to extort money.
Decision:
Conviction under Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation) and Section 385 (Extortion).
Court emphasized that threats need not be direct to be intimidation; fear alone is sufficient.
Significance: Clarified that intimidation extends to psychological coercion as well.
Case 4: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2019)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Involved surveillance and monitoring of journalists and activists, causing fear and harassment.
Decision:
Court observed that unlawful tracking or monitoring can amount to stalking, especially when repeated and persistent.
Reiterated privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Significance: Recognized stalking and intimidation in the digital and political sphere.
Case 5: XYZ v. State of Kerala (2017)
Court: Kerala High Court
Facts: Accused stalked a woman on social media, sending abusive messages and threats.
Decision:
Conviction under IPC Sections 354D, 503, and 506, read with IT Act provisions.
Court highlighted that cyber stalking is punishable and not just “online annoyance.”
Significance: Pioneering case linking cyber harassment with traditional stalking laws.
Case 6: Neha Gupta v. Rajesh Sharma (2020)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts: Accused persistently followed the victim, tried to meet her at work, and sent threatening texts.
Decision:
Conviction under Section 354D (Stalking) and Section 506 (Intimidation).
Court observed that intent to instill fear is the key criterion.
Significance: Clarified the definition of stalking: even if no physical harm occurs, persistent harassment is criminal.
Case 7: State of Tamil Nadu v. Arjun Kumar (2018)
Court: Madras High Court
Facts: Accused used social media to send threatening and sexually explicit messages repeatedly.
Decision:
Convicted under Section 354D, 506 IPC, and Section 66E IT Act.
Court observed that digital stalking constitutes criminal harassment.
Significance: Reinforced that stalking law applies equally to offline and online harassment.
3. Key Principles from These Cases
Stalking = Persistent following or contact
Includes physical following, repeated calls, messages, or online contact.
Intimidation = Threats causing fear
Includes threats to life, reputation, or property.
Direct or indirect threats are actionable.
Digital harassment counts
Social media, email, WhatsApp, or apps can be grounds for stalking/intimidation charges.
Intent matters
Courts look for repeated behavior or intent to cause fear or harassment.
Overlap of stalking and intimidation
Often the same act can amount to both offenses simultaneously.
Compensation and protective orders
Courts may issue restraining orders, injunctions, or direct State to provide protection.
4. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Court | Offense | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. | SC | Stalking/Intimidation | Personal liberty and autonomy; harassment actionable |
| State v. John Doe | Delhi HC | Stalking & Intimidation | Physical + cyber stalking conviction |
| State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh K. | Bombay HC | Intimidation | Threats causing fear sufficient for conviction |
| Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India | SC | Stalking/Harassment | Surveillance as stalking; privacy protection |
| XYZ v. State of Kerala | Kerala HC | Cyber Stalking | Online harassment actionable under IPC & IT Act |
| Neha Gupta v. Rajesh Sharma | Delhi HC | Stalking & Intimidation | Persistent harassment = stalking |
| State of Tamil Nadu v. Arjun Kumar | Madras HC | Cyber Stalking | Digital stalking criminalized under IPC + IT Act |
These cases together establish that stalking and intimidation are serious offenses in both physical and cyber spaces, and courts increasingly protect mental, emotional, and physical safety.
RELATED Blog
comments