Pranav Birje | Senior Correspondent
The Court made the observation while quashing a case against a 21-year-old boy booked for having hugged and kissed his 19-year-old girlfriend while the couple had met one night in November 2022.
The Madras High Court recently observed that hugging and kissing among teenage couples (young adults) is quite natural and the same doesn’t constitute an offence under Section 354-A(1)(i) (physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court made the observation while quashing a case against a 21-year-old boy booked for having hugged and kissed his 19-year-old girlfriend while the couple had met one night in November 2022.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh explained that in order to attract the offence under Section 354-A(1)(i) of IPC, a man must commit physical contact and make advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures.
“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 single-judge noted in a November 4 order.
After noting that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the young boy would result in abuse of the process of law, the Court proceeded to quash the case against him.
Madras High Court
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the 21-year-old boy who sought the quashing of criminal proceedings against him.
The prosecution stated that the couple had been in a relationship since the year 2020. On November 13, 2022 they met and talked from 9 pm to midnight, during which the boy hugged and kissed her.
The girl informed her parents about her relationship and asked the boy to marry her. However, he refused and began avoiding her which led to the complaint against the boy.
The Court noted that the young couple were admittedly having a love affair and in such circumstances, it was quite natural for them to have hugged and kissed each other.
Therefore, it allowed the boy’s plea and quashed the case against him.
Advocates G Karuppasamy Pandian appeared for the petitioner.
Government Advocate A Albert James represented the prosecution.