Cyber Stalking Complaint: When Online Harassment Becomes Crime

It started with a comment on a holiday photo. He used to be a friend of a friend; you politely thanked him and moved on. The next week, he liked every single post you had ever made, going back four years. The week after, the messages began. First a "hi". Then a slightly uncomfortable compliment. Then four more. You did not reply. He kept writing. You blocked him. A new account appeared the next morning, made the same day, with a profile photo of a sunset. The messages started again, this time saying he just wanted to talk. You blocked again. Three accounts later, the messages turned hostile. He said he knew where you worked. He said he had screenshots. He started tagging you in posts on a fan page he had made of you, with photos taken from your own profile.

You stopped sleeping properly. You stopped putting up stories. You started checking who walked past you in the metro. You wondered whether the law could actually do anything, or whether anyone would tell you to "just block him and forget it".

The law in India can do something. The law in India is, in fact, written for exactly this situation. This article walks you through it — the sections, the FIR, the evidence, the civil injunction, the cyber cell — in the order a careful lawyer would tell you, in plain English. Read it slowly. Take a breath. There is a path forward.

What the Law Calls Cyber Stalking

The legal threshold is repeated unwanted contact, despite a clear indication of disinterest, or surveillance of a woman's online activity. It is not one message. It is the pattern. The pattern can sit on one platform or jump across many — Instagram DMs, WhatsApp from new numbers, fake follower accounts on X, comments on LinkedIn, tagged photos on someone else's page. The legal name for the conduct is stalking, and the IPC commentary identifies it as electronic stalking specifically when it happens through computers, phones, apps and social media.

Crucially, you do not need a threat for it to be a crime. You do not need money to have changed hands. You do not need to have been physically followed in the street. The repeated unwanted contact is itself the offence, and so is the surveillance of your online activity. The IPC's commentary records that this provision was added on the recommendation of the Justice Verma Committee, which was set up in the aftermath of the Nirbhaya incident in 2012. The Committee found that offences such as stalking, voyeurism and "eve-teasing" had been treated as "minor" even though "they are capable of depriving not only a girl child but frail children of their right to education and their freedom of expression and movement". The legislature responded with a specific section.

Section 354D — The Core Offence

Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code defines stalking. The provision reads, in essence:

Any man who follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking.

The IPC commentary sums it up cleanly: "despite a clear indication of disinterest by a woman, if she is followed by a man either in person or through the electronic medium then he is guilty of the offence of stalking as defined in this section". The "electronic medium" cover is the part that brings DMs, fake followers, comment-stalking, story-checking and message-bombing inside the offence.

The punishment ladder is intentionally graded. First conviction: imprisonment of either description for up to three years, with fine. Subsequent conviction: imprisonment of either description for up to five years, with fine. The offence is cognizable — meaning the police can register the FIR and investigate without prior approval from a Magistrate.

The provision lists narrow defences — that the conduct was for preventing or detecting crime by a person entrusted with that responsibility, or that it was pursued under a law, or that it was reasonable in the circumstances. None of these typically fit the unwanted-DM pattern; they exist to protect investigators, journalists and lawful surveillance actors.

When the IT Act Sections Stack On Top

Where the stalker has done more than just contact you — where he has sent intimate images, transmitted obscene content, captured your private moments, or impersonated your account — the Information Technology Act, 2000 stacks additional offences.

Section 66E of the IT Act — violation of privacy — punishes whoever intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without consent, with imprisonment up to three years and fine up to two lakh rupees. The unwanted "intimate" message containing an image, the leaked private photo, the screen-recorded video chat — all fall within this section.

Section 67 of the IT Act — punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form — applies where the content is "lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest" or which would tend to deprave and corrupt. Up to three years on first conviction; up to five on subsequent.

Section 67A of the IT Act — for sexually explicit content — is the steeper version, with up to five years on first conviction and up to seven on subsequent.

Section 66C of the IT Act — identity theft — applies where the stalker fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of "the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature" of another person. This catches the case where he hacked your account, used your old saved password, or impersonated you on a platform.

Where the cluster of conduct also includes the broader patterns of online harm and digital harassment, the same lawyer typically files a single FIR citing Section 354D of the IPC together with the relevant IT Act sections. The cluster is what makes the matter sit firmly within the cognizable, non-bailable category and forces faster police action.

Threats and Insult to Modesty

Two further IPC sections often come into the same FIR.

Section 503 of the IPC defines criminal intimidation — threatening another with injury to person, reputation or property, with intent to cause alarm or to compel her to do or omit something she is not bound to do or entitled to omit. Section 506 of the IPC punishes it: up to two years for ordinary intimidation, up to seven where the threat is of death or grievous hurt. The Supreme Court in Manik Taneja v State of Karnataka (2015) 7 SCC 423 clarified that the section requires actual intent to cause alarm — but the threshold for repeated message-threats from a stalker is easily crossed where he says he knows where you live, threatens to leak photos, or threatens to "ruin your life".

Section 509 of the IPC — word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman — covers the harasser's sexually-loaded messages, comments and posts directed at the woman. The section was traditionally used for catcalling and street harassment; it applies equally to "exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman". Punishment up to three years' simple imprisonment, with fine.

Where the stalker's content is anonymous or sent from a hidden handle, Section 507 of the IPC — anonymous criminal intimidation — adds an extra punishment of up to two years on top of Section 506. Together, the FIR runs: 354D, 506, 507, 509 + IT Act 66C, 66E, 67/67A.

Evidence — Screenshots and Section 65B

Indian courts admit electronic records — screenshots, chat logs, call records, account-creation traces — under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The rule, set out in Section 65B(1) and (2), is that secondary electronic evidence (a printout, a copy, a screenshot) is admissible only when accompanied by a certificate identifying the device, asserting that the device was operating properly when the records were captured, and authenticating the contents.

The Supreme Court in Anvar P V v P K Basheer AIR 2015 SC 180 held that the certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence. The Court explained the purpose plainly: "Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice." The earlier bench in Tomaso Bruno v State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 17 had similarly held that print-outs of electronic records stored on optical or magnetic media are admissible if the conditions of Section 65B(2) are met.

The practical recipe is mechanical:

1. Screenshot the entire conversation, not snippets — sender's display name, his number or username, the platform header, the date and time on each message, and the system clock at the top of your phone.
2. Where the conversation is long, screenshot in continuous frames so the timeline is unbroken.
3. Email the screenshots to yourself the same day. The email server's timestamp creates an independent record.
4. Do not edit the images. No cropping, no annotation, no re-saving in a different format.
5. Keep your phone with the original chat undeleted. The investigating officer may need to inspect it directly.
6. Capture the URLs of fake follower or impersonation accounts before they are deleted. A platform-side preservation request through the cyber cell freezes the data even after a take-down.

Your lawyer drafts the Section 65B certificate when filing.

Filing the FIR and the Cyber Cell Route

The FIR is the formal step that starts the criminal investigation. Under BNSS Section 173 — the new procedural law that replaced CrPC Section 154 from 1 July 2024 — every information relating to a cognizable offence must be reduced to writing by the Station House Officer. Section 354D is cognizable; the SHO is bound to register.

The right entry points in Delhi:

• The local police station with jurisdiction over your residence or the place from which the messages reach you. A zero-FIR is registrable at any station and transferred onward.
• The district cyber unit attached to the police district. For Delhi, the cyber cell coordinates with the local SHO and is set up to handle the technical preservation and platform notices.
• The online complaint at cybercrime.gov.in. Open round the clock, accepts file uploads, generates an acknowledgement number immediately.
• The 1930 helpline — primarily for financial fraud, but useful where the stalker has also extracted money or identity data.

Carry a typed narrative complaint (a calm, chronological timeline of events with dates), the screenshots in a labelled folder, the cybercrime.gov.in acknowledgement, and a copy of your government photo ID. Your complaint should specifically cite Section 354D, the relevant IT Act sections, Sections 503/506 and 509 IPC. Insist on registration. If the SHO calls the matter "minor", point to the IPC commentary itself, which records the legislative history of Section 354D — the Justice Verma Committee's specific finding that such conduct was being wrongly treated as minor.

If the SHO refuses, escalate. BNSS Section 173(4) entitles you to send the substance of the information by registered post to the Superintendent of Police. If the SP also fails, file a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate under BNSS Section 223 (old CrPC Section 200) and ask for an investigation order under BNSS Section 175(3) (old CrPC Section 156(3)). Indian courts have repeatedly upheld this fall-back route.

The Civil Injunction Route Alongside FIR

The criminal case is the deterrent track; it can take time. A civil injunction is the speed track.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, you can file a civil suit in the District Court asking the court to restrain the defendant — by name and through any other accounts he might create — from contacting you, attempting to contact you, monitoring your social media, posting about you, or coming within a defined radius of your home or workplace. Where the threat is immediate, courts grant interim ex-parte injunctions within days, sometimes the same day, on the basis that prima facie harm is shown and balance of convenience favours protection. Breach of the injunction is contempt of court — sharp, additional consequences for the stalker.

Where the stalker is your former husband, in-law, or domestic partner, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 opens an additional remedy. Section 18 of the DV Act empowers the Magistrate to pass a protection order prohibiting the respondent from communicating in any form, entering your workplace, or attempting personal contact. The DV Act remedy is fast and focused.

For unrelated parties, the civil injunction in the District Court is the main route. Many lawyers run both — the civil injunction for fast restraint, the criminal FIR for record, deterrence and possible imprisonment. Take-down requests to platforms under the IT Rules 2021 run alongside.

Why the Complaint Must Come From the Victim

Stalking is what criminal-law commentary classifies as a personal-injury offence — the harm is to the woman's dignity, autonomy and freedom of movement. The legislative scheme treats her as the appropriate complainant because only she can speak to the felt impact of the conduct. Where she is a minor or otherwise unable to file herself, a parent, guardian or near relative may file on her behalf. A neighbour, distant relative, or unconnected third party generally cannot file an FIR for stalking against the woman's will.

The principle has a protective rationale — it ensures the woman is not pulled into a criminal proceeding she did not want, and that her privacy is not breached by well-meaning outsiders. In practice, if you are over 18 and able to walk into a police station, the FIR will be registered on your complaint. If you are a minor, your parent or guardian files. If you are an adult but in a coercive situation, a near relative can file once she signs a written authorisation.

Talking to a Lawyer Early Helps

Many cases come to lawyers late, after the victim has tried to handle it alone for months. The earlier the legal step, the cleaner the evidence record, and the stronger the eventual FIR or injunction. The women safety and cyber-litigation team at Pinaka Legal handles cyber-stalking matters as a single workflow — the FIR registration, the cyber-cell coordination, the civil injunction or DV Act protection order, and the platform take-down requests. Confidentiality is central to how the firm runs these files. One folder, one timeline, one lawyer reading every paper.

What Should I Actually Do Now?

You Are Allowed to Take This Seriously

One of the cruel parts of stalking is the way it makes a woman second-guess her own discomfort. Was that message really threatening, or am I overreacting? Should I just block him and ignore the new account, or am I making too much of a few DMs? The legal answer is unambiguous: repeated unwanted contact, despite a clear signal of disinterest, is a criminal offence — and so is monitoring a woman's online activity. You are not overreacting. The legislature wrote a specific section so that women in your situation would not have to convince anyone.

The work of pulling the file together can feel exhausting on a day when you barely slept. Do it in small chunks — screenshots one evening, the timeline the next, the FIR draft a third. A clean file at the end is what makes the difference between a complaint that the SHO files away and an FIR that turns into a chargesheet. Reach out for help — from family, friends, a lawyer, a counsellor — at every step. You should not be doing this alone, and you do not have to.

Frequently Asked Questions

When does online attention become legally cyber stalking in India?

The line is crossed when the contact is repeated despite a clear indication of disinterest. Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code defines stalking — a man who follows a woman, contacts or attempts to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest, or monitors her use of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits stalking. Persistent DMs after a "leave me alone", repeated friend requests from new accounts, monitoring her stories and tagging her in unsolicited posts — each is a textbook ingredient. The first conviction is punishable up to three years; on subsequent conviction, up to five years.

Is monitoring my online activity a crime even if he never sends a message?

Yes. Section 354D(1)(ii) of the IPC specifically penalises a man who "monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication". The offence is the surveillance itself — viewing every story, screenshotting every post, logging every login, watching activity status to track when you are online — even without sending a single message. Combined with electronic harassment patterns, the conduct is fully cognizable. The IPC commentary records that this provision was added on the recommendation of the Justice Verma Committee precisely because such surveillance had been treated as "minor" and was depriving women of their freedom of expression and movement.

How do I file a cyber stalking complaint online harassment crime FIR?

Take screenshots of the entire conversation pattern — not snippets — with the stalker's profile name or number, date and time visible, and the platform identifiable. File the online complaint at cybercrime.gov.in for the acknowledgement number. Walk into the police station, ideally a women's cell or the cyber cell in Delhi, with a typed timeline. Insist on FIR under Section 354D of the IPC, alongside Section 506 for criminal intimidation if there are threats, Section 509 if your modesty was insulted, Section 67 of the IT Act if obscene content was sent. The FIR is registered under BNSS Section 173. If the police stall, escalate to the Superintendent of Police and to a Magistrate.

He sent intimate images of me — what additional sections apply?

Multiple sections stack. Section 66E of the IT Act, 2000 punishes whoever knowingly publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without consent — punishment up to three years and fine. Section 67 of the IT Act covers transmitting any material "lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest" — three years on first conviction, five years on subsequent. Section 67A applies if the material is sexually explicit — five years and ten years respectively. Section 354C of the IPC for voyeurism applies if photos were taken in a private moment. Together with Section 354D, the FIR can run to a serious cluster of cognizable, non-bailable offences.

Can I take action if the stalker is my ex-husband or former partner?

Yes, and additional remedies open up. The criminal track under Section 354D and the IT Act offences runs as it would for a stranger. On the family law side, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 lets you apply for a protection order from the Magistrate restraining the respondent from communicating with you, entering your workplace, or contacting you in any form. If a 498A or DV proceeding is already on, the same lawyer can club the cyber-stalking conduct as continuing harassment evidence. The civil injunction route in the District Court is also available — see the section on civil remedies above.

Can I get a court order to make him stop?

Yes. Two parallel routes exist. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a civil suit for an injunction can be filed in the District Court where you reside, asking the court to restrain the defendant from contacting, following, or attempting to contact you in any form, including online. Courts grant interim ex-parte injunctions where the threat is immediate. Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Magistrate can pass a protection order under Section 18 prohibiting the respondent from communicating in any way. The criminal FIR continues separately. A lawyer typically files both — civil for speed, criminal for deterrence.

He uses fake accounts — does the law cover that?

It does, with extra teeth. Section 354D applies regardless of whether the contact is from one account or fifty. Section 66C of the IT Act for identity theft is attracted if any password, account or ID was misused. Where a fake account impersonates someone else's photograph or identifies as you, Section 66D for cheating by personation by computer resource and Section 416 of the IPC for cheating by personation also apply. Each new fake account is a fresh count. The investigating officer obtains call-detail and account-creation records from the platform and the telecom provider through notices under BNSS Section 94.

What if the stalker is anonymous and his account is in another country?

The complaint is still valid and still actionable. The FIR is registered against "unknown person" and the cyber cell takes over identification. Indian platforms — Meta, X, Google — have grievance officers in India under the IT Rules 2021 who must respond to take-down requests and law-enforcement notices within fixed timelines. Where the offender is abroad, the investigation can route through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between governments. While that is slower, the take-down of the offending account, the preservation of platform data, and the protection orders inside India proceed without waiting for the foreign trail.

How do I make sure the screenshots will be accepted as evidence?

Indian courts admit electronic records — screenshots, chat logs, call records — under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court in Anvar P V v P K Basheer settled that secondary electronic evidence is admissible only with a certificate identifying the device, asserting it was operating properly when the records were captured, and authenticating the contents. The recipe is mechanical: screenshot full conversations not snippets, capture system clock and platform header, email screenshots to yourself for an independent server timestamp, do not delete or edit anything, keep the phone with the original chat unwiped. Your lawyer drafts the Section 65B certificate when filing.

Why is the law specific that the complaint must be made by the victim or her guardian?

Stalking is what criminal-law commentary calls a personal-injury offence — the harm is to the woman's dignity, autonomy and freedom. The legislative scheme treats her as the appropriate complainant because only she can speak to the felt impact of the conduct. Where she is a minor or otherwise unable to file herself, a parent, guardian or near relative may file on her behalf. A stranger neighbour or unconnected third party generally cannot file an FIR for stalking against the woman's will. This protects her control over the matter — ensuring she is not pulled into a criminal case she did not want.

How long does the case take and what is the likely outcome?

Investigation typically completes in three to six months when the offender is identifiable. The chargesheet is filed under BNSS Section 193 — the new equivalent of CrPC Section 173. Trial in a Magistrate's court takes one to two years. First-time conviction under Section 354D carries imprisonment up to three years and fine; subsequent conviction up to five years. Where the cluster includes IT Act 66E or 67/67A, the offences are non-bailable and the punishment is steeper. Civil injunctions are far faster — interim orders within weeks, sometimes days. Many cases compound or settle through court mediation if the offender agrees to a written undertaking and apology.

What if the police treat my cyber stalking complaint online harassment crime as 'minor'?

Push back, on the law itself. Section 354D was specifically introduced after the Justice Verma Committee found that stalking and similar conduct were treated as "minor" even though they "deprive young women of their right to education and their freedom of expression and movement". The IPC commentary records this verbatim. If the SHO refuses to register the FIR, send the substance of the information by registered post to the Superintendent of Police under BNSS Section 173(4). If the SP also fails, file a private complaint before the Magistrate under BNSS Section 223 and ask for an investigation order under BNSS Section 175(3). The High Court under Article 226 is the final layer.

What can the Delhi Police Cyber Cell actually do?

The Delhi Police Cyber Cell, working with district cyber units, has the technical capability to issue preservation notices to platforms, obtain account-creation records and IP logs, trace SIM cards through telecom-provider notices, and coordinate with the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre on cross-state matters. They also assist in take-down — escalating reports to platform grievance officers under the IT Rules 2021 to remove offending content within fixed timelines. The cyber cell can also recommend the SHO to register the FIR where the local police station is hesitant. For Delhi residents, walking into the cyber unit alongside the local police station is the right combination.

For more articles on Indian law, visit the Pinaka Legal Blog. For queries, call +91 8595704798 or email info@pinakalegal.com.