The Madras High Court has dismissed a case against a couple, stating that it is normal for two teenagers in a romantic relationship to hug or kiss each other, which relates to Section 354A of the IPC.
The Madras High Court has dismissed a sexual assault case against a 20-year-old man under section 354-A(1)(i) of the IPC. The court stated that it is normal for two teenagers in a romantic relationship to hug or kiss. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, in a single-judge bench, explained that for an offense under this section, there must be unwelcome and explicit sexual advances. Advocate G. Karuppasamy Pandian represented the petitioner, while Government Advocate A. Albert James represented the state. The prosecution claimed that the petitioner and the complainant were in a relationship and met in a secluded area where they talked until midnight. During this time, the petitioner hugged and kissed the complainant. Afterward, he refused to marry her and began to avoid her, leading to the complaint and the FIR being filed under section 354-A(1)(i).
The bench noted that the petitioner is 20 and the complainant is 19. It stated that even if the allegations are accepted as true, it is natural for teenagers in love to hug or kiss, which does not constitute an offense under section 354-A(1)(i). The court concluded that no offense was established against the petitioner, and continuing the criminal proceedings would misuse the legal process.
The police completed their investigation and submitted a final report to the Judicial Magistrate, which was accepted. The court clarified that even if a petition is filed to dismiss the First Information Report and a final report is submitted, it can still use its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to dismiss the case if justified. Therefore, the court used its authority under Section 482 of the CrPC to dismiss the ongoing proceedings in the competent Court and approved the Criminal Original Petition.
Cause Title: Santhanaganesh v. State [Crl.O.P.(MD) No.611 of 2023]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate G.Karuppasamy Pandian
Respondent: Government Advocate A.Albert James
