I have watched several episodes of the series Suits in which US Courts issue Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) being emergency orders often granted ex-parte (without the respondent's present) in favour of plaintiffs. Celebrities like Miley Cyrus, Selena Gomez, Ryan Gosling, Harry Styles, Rihanna and Halle Berry have all successfully obtained TROs from the Courts against people/fans who engaged in trespassing, stalking, intimidating them or similar conduct. Most celebrity TROs in the US are granted in response to stalking, harassment, trespassing, and threatening behavior by overly persistent or obsessed fans or individuals.
This raises the important question of why such orders are not commonly issued in India to deal with cases of stalking, harassment or the situation where the applicant finds himself/herself in a potentially threatening relationship. While India has the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which empowers courts to issue protection orders in domestic or spousal contexts— including prohibiting any form of communication (personal, oral, written, electronic, or telephonic) with the aggrieved person— similar remedies for non-domestic instances of stalking or harassment appear limited.
There are reported cases where Civil courts in India have issued injunctions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) restraining defendants from engaging in agitation/protest activities within a specified radius (for example, 300 meters) of a plaintiff's office, factory, hospital, airport, or other premises. However, there seems to be no widely reported judicial precedent in India granting comparable protection orders in non-domestic situations involving stalking, harassment, or obsessive behavior.
In India, stalking and harassment are understood as criminal offences under BNS (earlier IPC Section 354D) especially in relation to women gender and are dealt by criminal Courts in India, but a recent order by a Delhi Court in the case of ‘Mukesh Taneja Vs. Nancy Verma And Anr.' reflect how even civil courts can issue injunctive relief to protect victims which may include male gender before criminal proceedings conclude. This opens a parallel protective mechanism for victims, similar to “restraining orders” or “protection orders” in countries like the US.
As per the facts of the case, the Plaintiff was the owner of a residential property in Vijay Nagar, Delhi. Plaintiff and Defendant came into contact being the devotee of Sant Kripal Singh ji Maharaj as both used to visit the Ashram. Thereafter, in the first week of December, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendant met for the first time in the Ashram and exchanged their mobile numbers and since then, they were in talking terms with each other. Subsequently, in the month of July 2022, Defendant no. 1 showed her feelings towards the Plaintiff, however, Plaintiff rejected the same being an old age married man. However, Defendant started threatening the Plaintiff to commit suicide if her proposal is not accepted and persuaded the Plaintiff to remain in her contact. Later on, in the month of November 2022, Defendant no. 1 started stalking the son and daughter of the Plaintiff through social media platform and also started pressurizing the Plaintiff to have physical relationship with her and manipulated the plaintiff to fulfil her sexual desire. However, due to her possessive and obsessed behaviour, the Plaintiff blocked the Defendant no.1 from everywhere. It was further stated that upon the asking of Defendant 1, Plaintiff had financially helped the Defendant 1 on many occasions. However, later on, on 09.05.2024 Defendant no. 1 visited the suit property and started making scene as to how the Plaintiff blocked her. Same day, Plaintiff called the Defendant 2 being the husband of Defendant 1 and apprised about the behaviour of the Defendant 1, then Defendant 1 left the suit property with her husband, i.e., Defendant 2. That again in the years 2024 and 2025 and lastly on 09.02.2025, Defendant 1 visited the suit property and created huge drama and also threatened the Plaintiff to commit suicide. Police call was also made by the nephew of Plaintiff on 09.02.2025 and police complaint was also filed by the Plaintiff on 06.03.2025, however, Defendant 1 never stopped stalking the Plaintiff and his family members and still threatening the Plaintiff to commit suicide. Hence, the present suit was filed. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC against the Defendants, alleging harassment, stalking, and threats of suicide.
The Court observed that due to the acts and actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff was unable to live his life peacefully and freely and he even put his phone on permanent airplane mode due to which he was unable to receive call or messages from family, friends and relatives. It was further the case of the Plaintiff that due to frequent unwanted visits of Defendant 1 on the suit property, Plaintiff and his family were living under lock and threat of being defamed in the neighbourhood as she created huge drama at the suit property and also contacted the neighbours of Plaintiff and asked about the Plaintiff. It clearly showed that the above said acts of the Defendants affecting the very fundamental rights of the Plaintiff i.e., interfering with his ability to move freely, and preventing him from enjoying his life freely and peacefully which is clearly in violation of fundamental rights and that such interference causes irreparable injury which cannot be adequately redressed later.
After hearing arguments, based on the trinity test for interim injunctions I.e whether plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour and that balance of convenience also lies with the plaintiff and plaintiff would suffer irreparable injuries which cannot be compensated if his prayer is disallowed, the Delhi Court found that the Plaintiff's claims warranted immediate relief and as an interim measure, granted the following injunction:
(i) Restraining the Defendants, agents, attorneys, legal heirs, etc. from creating any kind of hindrance, obstruction, interference, nuisance over suit property
(ii) Defendants were further restrained from entering the suit property and to roam anywhere within the radius of 300 meter from the suit property.
(iii) Defendants were also restrained from stalking, harassing, or following the Plaintiff or any member of his family either in person or through any means of communication, including electronic, telephonic, or social media platforms.
(iv) Defendants were further restrained from making any attempt to contact the Plaintiff or his family members, directly or indirectly, including through third parties.
It was clarified that the violation of this order shall amount to contempt of court and shall be dealt with accordingly under the provisions of law.
Anhad Law's Perspective
Though the order passed by the Delhi District Court is interim and cannot serve as a judicial precedent unless confirmed, this case shows that Order 39 CPC can be used creatively to obtain restraining orders in harassment and stalking situations, not just in property/commercial disputes. Further, such order is not limited to female gender as is commonly understood but can be passed in case irrespective of gender.
Unlike India, the USA has statutory frameworks for such TROs e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure for harassment injunctions that explicitly deal with harassment/stalking, whereas India used a general civil injunction route under CPC.
It is expected that with the evolution of time and increasing cases of stalking/harassment, the Law Commission of India or Ministry of Law & Justice study international models and draft a comprehensive legislation for protection from harassment for consideration by Parliament to address cases involving injunctions against harassment, stalking, toxic relationships and related concerns.
Originally published on 06 August 2025 on Lexology
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
