The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against five men accused of allegedly circulating an obscene video using a woman’s Instagram photograph, identity and contact details through WhatsApp groups. Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the forensic material collected during the investigation provided sufficient grounds for the prosecution to proceed to trial.
The Court observed that the alleged misuse of a publicly available photograph could not be treated as consent to associate a woman’s identity with obscene material.
Background
The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman working as a lecturer at St. Philomina College, Puttur. She alleged that unknown persons had used her Instagram photograph and identity while circulating an obscene video in a WhatsApp group named 'Bad Boys'. The material was subsequently shared in other WhatsApp groups, following which she began receiving messages on her Instagram account.
Based on the complaint, D.K. Central Crime Police registered an FIR on March 6, 2020, under Sections 66(C) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. After completing the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet on July 17, 2024.
The five accused approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur. Their counsel argued that the woman in the Instagram photograph and the person appearing in the video were different.
The High Court examined multiple forensic reports submitted by the prosecution. One report recorded the recovery of image and video files from mobile phones and traced their sharing through WhatsApp accounts. Another report noted similarities in the facial features of the woman appearing in certain images and screenshots.
However, the forensic examination also recorded limitations, including the inability to examine certain visual material and determine whether the files had been edited.
Justice Govindaraj observed that the availability of a photograph on social media did not give others permission to misuse it.
"The use of a publicly available photograph does not, by itself, authorise another person to misuse it, create an obscene or indecent video by associating it with the photograph, or circulate the resulting material along with the woman’s identity and contact details."
The Court further emphasised that sharing a photograph for ordinary purposes could not be considered consent to its association with obscene material.
On the forensic findings, the Court held that the question of whether the woman in the video was actually the complainant required examination during trial.
"The petitioners’ contention that the person shown in the video is different from respondent No. 2 raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings."
The Court also considered the allegations under Sections 66(C) and 67 of the IT Act. Section 66(C) deals with identity theft, while Section 67 concerns publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
Rejecting the petitioners' arguments, the High Court held that the prosecution relied not merely on the complainant's photograph but also on recovered digital files, WhatsApp records and forensic findings.
Justice Govindaraj observed that the High Court could not conduct a mini-trial or decide disputed questions of identity while exercising its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings.
"This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot conduct a mini-trial or weigh the forensic evidence as though deciding the guilt or innocence of the petitioners."
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the criminal petition and refused to quash the chargesheet and related proceedings.
It clarified that the trial court must independently decide the matter on the basis of evidence, without being influenced by the observations made in the order.
Case Details
- Case Title: Dheeraj G Kunder & Others v. State of Karnataka
- Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 16549 of 2025
- Judge: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
- Decision Date: October 12, 2026
