The Karnataka high court has advised the government to come up with some regulatory measures to check the growth of pseudo-therapists and 'Instagram influencers'.
The court cautioned that many people were falling prey to such therapists online.
While rejecting a petition of one such 'influencer' who sought to quash a criminal case against her, the high court had said in a September 2 judgment: 'Therapists of this kind are many on the social media. In reality, they are not bound by ethics or not regulated by norms. Cases of this nature have begun to emerge in large proportion wherein people wanting to get therapy fall prey to pseudo-therapists.'
The court said, 'In public domain, there is a huge number of such therapists. On the social media, therapists pose as if they are in the field of therapy. It is also in public domain that they are pseudo-therapists who are 'Instagram influencers'.'
Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing a criminal petition by Sanjana Fernandes aka Raveera, a 28-year-old resident of Bengaluru.
A complaint was filed against her by Shankar Ganesh PJ.
The case is now pending before a magistrate court in which she has been accused of offences of cheating under the Indian Penal Code and various sections of the Information Technology Act.
According to the prosecution, Raveera, an IT professional, came in contact with the accused on a dating app.
After realising that Shankar Ganesh was under stress, she directed him to her Instagram page 'Positive For A 360 Life'.
She claimed to be a wellness therapist. After attending her online classes during the Covid-19 pandemic, the complainant transferred around Rs 3.15 lakh to her.
Ganesh wanted to meet the therapist personally and started sending her messages.
He was eventually blocked by her. He later found out that she had 15 profiles on Instagram and other social media platforms.
So he filed a complaint of cheating against her.
Raveera, in her petition before the high court, contended that Ganesh was sending her lewd messages and dirty requests and when she resisted, a false complaint was filed against her.
The court noted that the claims made by the accused about the therapy were unfounded.
'It is her own generated web page, without any qualification. Therefore, it is a case wherein the petitioner without any substance or qualification lured customers into the web of wellness therapy through the web page.'
About her claims, the court noted that the 'chats will reveal that the petitioner had initially represented herself as a wellness therapist and that her team will take care of the complainant. Therefore, without having any team or any qualification whatsoever, it was the web page that was created to lure the complainant and the like. It is, therefore, the offence of cheating comes clearly made out against the petitioner.'
The court said she had filed a case against Ganesh for the lewd messages which was also pending. Dismissing her petition, the high court, in its judgement on September 2, said, 'I do not find any warrant to interfere with the case on hand as the petitioner has not demonstrated by production of such unimpeachable evidence of sterling character for this court to interfere or interject the proceedings.'
