Prima facie case found in obscene metro videos matter

The Karnataka High Court, Principal Bench at Bengaluru, declined to quash criminal proceedings arising from an Instagram page allegedly containing obscene videos of women travelling in metro trains. The petition was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS in C.C. No. 47469 of 2025, where the accused sought quashing of proceedings under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Sections 78(2) and 238(c) of the BNS.

The prosecution case began with a suo motu complaint by the Police Sub-Inspector attached to Banashankari Police Station. While checking social media, he allegedly found an Instagram account named Metro_Chicks, where unknown persons had followed women travelling in metro trains, taken pictures and videos of their body parts, and uploaded them on the page. The complaint referred to 14 obscene videos and led to Crime No. 171 of 2025. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner as the sole accused.

The petitioner argued that the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet were bald and vague, and that the witnesses were stock witnesses without credibility. The State opposed the petition, submitting that the allegations were grave and that the accused should face trial.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the materials collected during investigation disclosed sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed. The Court noted that the allegations concerned clandestine following, surreptitious recording, and publication of obscene content on social media, and observed that Section 67 of the IT Act is attracted when obscene material is disseminated electronically. The Court rejected the contention that the allegations were vague.

The Court also recorded that the facts were disturbing and that public transport must remain a place of safety and dignity, not one of silent fear and exploitation. It held that interdicting the proceedings at that stage would not be justified.

The petition was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations were only for deciding the quashing petition and would not bind the trial court.

Practical takeaway: Where investigation materials show electronic publication of obscene content, a quashing petition is unlikely to succeed at the threshold.