Court Quashes FIR Under Section 354-A(1)(i) IPC, Rules Consensual Actions Between Teenagers as Non-Criminal

Keywords ; Section 354-A(1)(i) IPC, consensual relationship, unwelcome advances, court ruling, teenage relationships, abuse of process of law,

In a recent judgment, the Court dismissed an FIR registered under Section 354-A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), finding no legal grounds to sustain charges related to “unwelcome advances” stemming from consensual interactions between two young adults in a relationship. The Court held that consensual acts such as hugging and kissing between teenagers in a relationship do not constitute “unwelcome physical advances with explicit sexual overtures” under this section of the IPC.

The case originated when two young adults, who had been in a consensual relationship since 2020, met on November 13, 2022, and shared a conversation lasting from 9:00 p.m. until midnight. During this time, the petitioner reportedly hugged and kissed the respondent. However, following the meeting, the respondent informed her parents and requested that the petitioner marry her. When the petitioner declined, the respondent filed a complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 354-A(1)(i) IPC.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the actions in question were a natural part of their relationship, given that both parties were teenagers engaged in a consensual romantic relationship. The counsel contended that the alleged behavior could not be construed as “unwelcome advances” with explicit sexual intent, which are necessary elements to establish an offense under Section 354-A(1)(i) IPC.

In its decision, the Court emphasized that the alleged actions between the two parties were consensual and could not reasonably be categorized as unwelcome or sexually explicit advances. The Court observed, “Even if the allegations are taken as they are, it is quite natural for two persons in their teenage years, who are in a love affair, to hug or kiss each other. By no stretch, this can constitute an offense under Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC.”

The Court further clarified that for an offense to be established under Section 354-A(1)(i) IPC, there must be “physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures.” In this context, the Court noted that pursuing criminal proceedings against consensual teenage interactions would constitute an “abuse of the process of law.” As a result, the Court quashed the FIR and all related legal proceedings, citing a lack of evidence to support any offense under the applicable section of the IPC.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in differentiating between consensual actions in personal relationships and behavior that genuinely constitutes criminal misconduct. It also highlights the importance of a nuanced approach to legal standards in cases involving young adults, consent, and evolving social norms.

Stay tuned for live updates on the rupee’s movement and real-time business news on Kanishk Social Media—your go-to source for comprehensive stock market and legal news.