Sanjana Fernandes v. State of Karnataka
In the High Court of Karnataka
Crl.P. 8929/2021
Before Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decided on September 02, 2022

Relevancy of the Case: Quashing of FIR in a case involving misrepresentation as a wellness therapist on Instagram

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66C, 66D, 67A)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 419, 420)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The complainant and the petitioner came in contact with each other through a dating app. The petitioner presented herself as a wellness therapist and stated having a page on Instagram with the name positivity for a 360 life.
• The complainant believes such representation and seeks therapy. He transfers money on a class-to-class basis after being satisfied.
• After a while, the complainant starts sending lewd messages and materials containing pornography to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner blocks his account.
• The complainant, thereafter, checks the validity of the therapy he undertook. He found 15 other such profiles on Instagram and filed a case of cheating.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that she is a wellness therapist and is innocent. The counsel contended that the complainant has filed a false case because she did not reply to his lewd messages.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that the petitioner approached the complainant under a false name, Rishta. This is not the petitioner’s real name. Moreover, she lured him into therapy to obtain money.

Opinion of the Bench

• The consent form signed by the complainant before taking the therapy does not include the petitioner’s qualifications. Therefore, her Instagram account is being operated without any qualification.
• The petitioner lured the complainant, so it is necessary to conduct a trial.
• Moreover, the court cannot use its power under Section 482 as the petitioner has not presented concrete evidence for her qualifications.

Final Decision

• The court dismissed the petition.