The Karnataka High Court has said that it is time the government comes up with some regulatory measures on "therapies and therapists" mushrooming on social media and instances wherein the public are falling prey to such people. The court observed this while refusing to quash the proceedings against a woman who faces allegations of cheating.
The petitioner, a woman, and the complainant, who is an IT professional, had contacted each other on the dating app Tinder. On a particular night during a chat, when the complainant claimed that he was stressed, the petitioner said she was a wellness therapist and has an Instagram page "positivity-for-a-360-life". The complainant joined the class and sent around Rs 3.15 lakh for the classes held by the petitioner through Instagram.
After some time, when the complainant started sending lewd messages and posted indecent content containing pornography, the petitioner blocked his account. At this stage, the complainant found that the petitioner had 15 such profiles on Instagram and other social media sites. He filed a complaint against the petitioner for cheating under IPC as well as under provisions of the Information Technology Act.
Challenging these proceedings, the petitioner contended that it was the complainant who approached her for his well being and that he had voluntarily transferred the amounts. On the other hand, the complainant argued that the petitioner is a con-woman who lured him to the wellness therapy and cheated him of his money.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said that a perusal of the chat shows that it is the petitioner who lured the complainant into the therapy. The court said that it becomes necessary for a trial for the petitioner to come out clean.
The court further said, "It is in public domain that there are mushrooming of so-called therapies and therapists on social media, that is, Instagram, Twitter or Facebook as the case would be, wherein therapists pose to be in the field of therapy.
It is also in public domain that they are all "pseudo-therapists" who are "Instagram influencers", the court said.