Recently, the Court quashed an FIR under Section 354-A(1)(i) IPC, finding no grounds for charges of unwelcome advances. The case involved consensual hugging & kissing between two young adults in a relationship. The Court observed that such actions between consenting teenagers in a relationship could not be construed as unwelcome advances or explicit sexual overtures within the meaning of Section 354-A(1)(i), stating that pursuing criminal charges in such cases would constitute an "abuse of process of law."

The case arose when the petitioner and the respondent, who were involved in a love affair since 2020, met on November 13, 2022. They conversed from 9:00 p.m. to midnight, during which the petitioner reportedly hugged and kissed the respondent. Following this, the respondent informed her parents and requested the petitioner to marry her. However, the petitioner refused, leading the respondent to file a complaint. Consequently, an FIR was registered under Section 354-A(1)(i) of the IPC. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the alleged actions were natural interactions between consenting teenages and did not constitute the offence of unwelcome physical advances with explicit sexual overtures under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC.

​​The Court noted that both parties were young adults involved in a consensual relationship. It found that hugging or kissing between two individuals in such a relationship could not be classified as unwelcome or sexually explicit advances within the meaning of Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC, stated that, “even if the allegations are taken as it is, it is quite natural for two persons in the teenage, who are having a love affair to hug or kiss each other. By no stretch, this can constitute an offence under Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC”. The Court noted that “to constitute an offence under Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC, a man must commit a physical contact and make advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures.”Emphasising that pursuing charges based on such interactions would constitute an abuse of legal process. The Court further stated that pursuing criminal proceedings based on these allegations would amount to “abuse of process of law.” The Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, finding no offence made out against the petitioner.

 

Picture Source :