Facts of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash an FIR by the All-Women Police Station, Srivaigundam. The FIR alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution’s case was based on an alleged love affair between the petitioner (20 years old) and the de facto complainant (19 years old) that began in 2020. On November 13, 2022, the petitioner called the complainant to a location, where they talked privately from 9:00 PM to midnight. During this time, the petitioner reportedly hugged and kissed the complainant. Later, the complainant disclosed their relationship to her parents and expressed her desire to marry the petitioner. When the petitioner refused and began avoiding her, the complainant filed a complaint, leading to the FIR.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

1. The petitioner argued that the FIR and subsequent proceedings were an abuse of the legal process, as no offence under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC had been committed.
2. It was submitted that the alleged actions were consensual and occurred within the context of a teenage love affair, making the invocation of Section 354A IPC inappropriate.
3. The petitioner contended that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to harassment and requested that the FIR and all related proceedings be quashed.

Contentions of the Respondent:

1. The State opposed the petition, asserting that the complainant’s allegations in the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence under Section 354A IPC.
2. It was argued that the petitioner’s refusal to marry the complainant and his subsequent avoidance of her warranted the initiation of legal proceedings to ensure justice for the complainant.
3. The respondent police emphasized their duty to investigate and prosecute cases where allegations of sexual harassment were made.

Findings of the Court:

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC, sexual harassment requires a man to commit physical contact and make advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. The court emphasized that the conduct must be unwelcome and explicitly sexual in nature to constitute an offence. In this case, the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was admitted, and their actions were consensual, arising from mutual affection. The court observed that hugging and kissing between two individuals in a teenage love affair was natural and could not be construed as sexual harassment. The court also highlighted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings, based on the allegations in the FIR, would result in an abuse of the process of law.

Decision of the Court:

The court quashed the FIR and the criminal proceedings exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court criticized the police for filing a final report despite explicit instructions not to do so and reiterated that it retains the jurisdiction to quash proceedings even after cognizance has been taken by the magistrate.

Credits: