Dismissing a case of moral policing, literally, the Delhi High Court on Monday came to a young couple’s rescue and stayed criminal proceedings against them. Rahul Mookerjee and his 23-year-old wife were both booked by the police for “obscenity” after they were allegedly found stealing a kiss under a Delhi Metro pillar at Dwarka court complex last September.

Calling the case “rather troubling”, Justice Muralidhar said, “The FIR, even when taken on face value, does not make out a case of obscenity.”

According to the couple, they were going to meet their lawyer, who had helped them tie the knot much against both their parents’ wishes a fortnight before the unhappy run-in with the police on September 18, 2008. Mookerji, 28, in his petition to quash the criminal proceedings says Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Vidyadhar Singh and Constable Roshan Lal of Dwarka police station came up to them and said he “knew what they (Mookerjee and wife) were up to”.

Matters took a turn for the worse when an FIR was registered at ASI Singh’s insistence. The FIR details Singh’s version: that the two were “sitting in an objectionable position near Metro’s pillar number 1140 and were kissing each other”.

“What is striking is that despite the ASI finding in an inquiry that the petitioners were husband and wife living in the same place, he thought it fit to go ahead and register an FIR for an obscene act,” Justice S Muralidhar said.

The officer also gave an insight into the minds of passersby who had witnessed the couple. “Passersby were feeling bad,” he says in the FIR. But the court said, “Although the FIR refers to passersby being annoyed, not a single name of any passerby is mentioned. Despite this, the so-called investigation of the FIR has resulted in a chargesheet filed on January 30.”

Describing what may have passed between the couple as an “expression of love by a young married couple”, the judge found it “inconceivable” that an act of warmth between the couple would be interpreted as obscene, thus “triggering the coercive process of law”.