BOOMERANG - Police fined for FIR against kissing Mumbai : 9820174108

Dear All,
The following appeared in  "Hindustan Times", New Delhi Edition on May 31,2009, page no. 01.

Please keep it on record for future reference.  (police excess).

Keep Smiling ... HemantAgarwal


BOOMERANG - Police fined for FIR against kissing


WHEN POLICEMEN in Dwarka charged a newlymarried couple with obscenity for “sitting in an objectionable position” and kissing openly near a Metro station in September last year, they said it was done as “passersby were annoyed and embarrassed”.
Eight months down the line, it turns out that it is the police who have been left deeply embarrassed by the criminal proceedings against the couple.

So much so that Delhi Police Commissioner Y.S. Dadwal has informed the Delhi High Court that he is ready to write a letter of apology to the couple for “the hardship they were subjected to”.

The police had earned severe criticism from the Delhi High Court for “overreacting” after the couple filed a plea seeking dropping of the charges.

An angry judge even ordered an inquiry against the policemen involved. This was after the couple told the court that the policemen sought Rs 20,000 for setting them free or for booking them for a lesser offence.

Questioning how an expression of love by a married couple at a public place amounts to obscenity, Justice S. Muralidhar quashed the FIR against them. He also asked the state to pay a compensation of Rs 5,000 each to the man and woman.

The 28-year-old man and 23-year-old woman were booked under IPC Section 294 (obscene act) with maximum imprisonment of three months and Section 34 (act done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention).

“The gesture of the Delhi Police in offering to write a letter of apology to each of the petitioners,which it is expected would be done immediately, will doubtless earn goodwill for them”, the judge said.

The judge went on to quash the FIR after a fresh vigilance inquiry ordered by the court exonerated the couple.

The police said they had no objection to the quashing of the FIR.


thank you very much sir, for giving valuable info... any how it is a nice judgement too.....


Dear Hemant,

You can refer the KISSING judgement for future references.

 JUSTICE  Muralidhar's order below. 

CRL.M.C. 283 of 2009

RAHUL MOOKERJI and ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Trideep pais and Ms. Naomi Chandra, Advocates.


STATE THR. N.C.T. OF DELHI and ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Behl, APP.

  O R D E R

Crl.M.A.No.1073 of 2009
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 283 of 2009 and CRL.M.A. No. 1072 of 2009 (stay)

1. The facts brought to the notice of this Court by way of the present
petition which seeks the quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR No. 581 of
2009 under Section 294/34 IPC are rather troubling. The Petitioners are a young
couple, aged 28 and 23 years, who solemnized their marriage on 4th September
2008 at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi apparently without the
knowledge of their respective parents. They sought the services CRL.M.C. 283 of 2009
page 1/4 of a lawyer to get their marriage registered under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
The lawyer asked them to come to the Dwarka Court Complex on 18th
September 2008 apparently to get some paper work done in regard to the registration of their
marriage. While they were waiting under the Metro Station near the court
complex at around 3 pm in the afternoon, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (?ASI?) of
Police Vidyadhar Singh (No. D/3563 PIS No. 16960047) attached to the Police
Station Dwarka along with a constable Roshan Lal (No. 1314/SW) accosted them and
allegedly told them that he knew what they were up to. According to the FIR
which was registered at the instance of the Vidhyadhar Singh, he found the two
Petitioners ?sitting in an objectionable position near Metro Pillar No.1140 and
were kissing each other. As a result of which the passersby were feeling bad.?
(This is the English translation of the FIR which was registered in
Hindi which
corresponds to these words).

2. The FIR records that on enquiry the ASI found that Petitioner No.2 is
the wife of Petitioner No.1 residing at the same address. Learned counsel for
the Petitioners clarifies that in the complaint made to the Bar Council of India
and to the Commissioner of Police although the addresses of the CRL.M.C. 283
of 2009 page 2/4 parties are shown as being in Greater Kailash, which is the
permanent address of Petitioner No.1, this has been done for the sake of convenience.
Since this was a love marriage without the knowledge of their respective parents, the address
of Petitioner No.2 continues to be shown as being in Gurgaon.
3. What is striking is that despite the SI finding on enquiry that the two
Petitioners were husband and wife living in the same place, he
thought it fit to go ahead and register an FIR for an offence under Sections 294 read
with 34 IPC. Although the FIR refers to ?passers by? being annoyed not a single name of any
?passer by? is found mentioned. Learned counsel for the Petitioners adds that
the so-called investigation of the FIR has resulted in a charge sheet being
filed on 30th January 2009 which does not refer to a single statement of any
passer by recorded under Section 161 CrPC. To say the least, the FIR even when
taken on its face value, does not make out a case for the offence
under Section 294 read with 34 IPC. It is inconceivable how, even if one were to
take what is stated in the FIR to be true, the expression of love by a young
married couple, in the manner indicated in the FIR, would attract the offence of ?obscenity?
and trigger the coercive process of the law.
CRL.M.C. 283 of 2009
page 3/4
4. Notice.

5. Mr. Behl, learned APP for the State accepts notice.

6. The trial court record be produced before the next date of hearing.

7. Mr. Behl further states that he will also take specific instructions on
the action taken on the complaint made on 27th October 2008 by the Petitioners
to the Commissioner of Police which appears to have been received in
the Office
of the Commissioner of Police on that day itself by Ms. Shalini
Singh, DCP, S/W.

8. There will be a stay of further proceedings arising out of FIR No. 581
of 2008 till further orders.

9. List on 25th February 2009.
10. Order dasti.

FEBRUARY 02, 2009
 CRL.M.C. 283 of 2009

   Now,I was intrigued by a case posted above, on a case from the delhi high court where a charges of obscenity against a couple kissing in public were dropped.if this is the case, it begs the question of what if they weren't married? what if they were both women, or both men, or, one or both otherwise????




Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Search Forum:


  LAWyersclubindia Menu