“Chand Nikla” WhatsApp Comment Not a Crime: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR for Obscenity and Sexual Harassment
Case Name: Dheeraj Gupta v. State of Haryana and another
Date of Judgment: 23 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M 62284 of 2024
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal
Held: A WhatsApp group message stating “Jaane kitne dinon ke baad society me abb chand nikla” along with emojis, though in poor taste and potentially offensive, does not amount to obscenity under Section 294 IPC, does not constitute a sexually coloured remark under Section 354-A IPC, and does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 509 IPC when it lacks sexual undertones and was not intended to be seen by the complainant. The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
Summary: The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 119 dated 14.02.2024 registered at Police Station Sector 10, Gurugram under Sections 120-B, 294, 354-A and 509 IPC.
The complainant, a Principal in a Government Senior Secondary School and a resident of the same housing society as the petitioner, alleged that her profile photograph was shared in a WhatsApp group titled “Privvy Cultural Group”. The petitioner commented: “Jaane kitne dinon ke baad society me abb chand nikla”, followed by emojis. It was alleged that the remark was lewd, sexually coloured, intended to insult her modesty and to defame and humiliate her publicly.
During investigation, Section 120-B IPC was deleted and only the petitioner was sent up for trial under Sections 294, 354-A and 509 IPC.
While examining Section 294 IPC, the Court relied on the test of obscenity laid down in N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha and reiterated that obscenity must have the tendency to deprave and corrupt or arouse sexually impure thoughts. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words are insufficient. The Court held that although a WhatsApp group message would amount to an “utterance in a public place”, the impugned message did not contain lascivious or sexual content and did not satisfy the legal definition of obscenity.
With respect to Section 354-A IPC, the Court observed that a “sexually coloured remark” must carry sexual undertones. The message in question, copied from a popular Bollywood expression and followed by a humorous exchange, lacked sexual content. Importantly, the complainant was not even a member of the WhatsApp group at the time of posting. Hence, the essential ingredients of sexual harassment were not made out.
On Section 509 IPC, the Court reiterated that the essence of modesty is linked to a woman’s sexual dignity and that the intention to insult such modesty is crucial. Relying on precedents including Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka and Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, the Court held that the words used had no nexus to the complainant’s sexual dignity and were not intended to be seen by her. Consequently, the offence under Section 509 IPC was also not attracted.
Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court found that the case fell within categories (a) and (c), as even if the allegations were accepted at face value, no offence was made out. Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
Decision: The petition was allowed. FIR No. 119 dated 14.02.2024 under Sections 120-B/294/354-A/509 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 10, Gurugram and all consequential proceedings were quashed qua the petitioner.