Section 6. Penalty
Any person who contravenes the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend two thousand rupees, and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term of not less than six months but which may extend to five years and also with a fine not less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees.
How courts have applied section 6
- Section 6 is generally invoked with penal and information-technology provisions, and bail was routinely allowed considering custody period and the nature of the allegations.1,2,3,4,5
- An FIR under Section 6 was quashed where the complainant swore a consent affidavit and the contested video carried a disclaimer.6
- Quashing was allowed where the dispute was amicably settled or arose from a matrimonial dispute that had been validly settled.7,8
- Quashing was declined where the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and involved disputed questions of fact.9,10,11
- The Supreme Court held the existing safeguards, including the 1986 Act, suffice for regulating adult-oriented material, which is judged by contemporary community standards.12
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
These judgements principally concern Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, invoked alongside provisions of the penal and information technology statutes. Courts in these orders most often granted anticipatory or regular bail, weighing the gravity of the accusations against the investigation stage and the period of custody. Bail was allowed where the relationship with the complainant was consensual or the parties had a pre-existing association, where the complainant did not wish to pursue proceedings, and where prolonged pre-trial detention made further custody unnecessary. One order granted bail subject to removal of contested social-media material.1,2,13,3,4,5,6
In several decisions the High Courts exercised their power to quash proceedings for abuse of process. An FIR was quashed when the complainant filed a consent affidavit and the video in question carried a disclaimer. Proceedings were quashed where they arose from a matrimonial dispute that had been validly settled, and where the parties had amicably settled the matter. Conversely, quashing was refused where the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence with disputed questions of fact, and one quashing petition was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on account of defective pleadings. A related order declined to quash a charge sheet but directed that bail be considered according to established guidelines.6,8,7,9,10,11,14,15
The Supreme Court in one decision upheld the constitutional validity of the regulatory scheme, holding that Article 19(1)(a) protects non-obscene adult-oriented material and that existing safeguards, including the 1986 Act, suffice; publications are to be judged as a whole by contemporary community standards. A parole application by a convict whose sentence included a Section 6 offence was considered on the basis of the period served. One order declining to quash rested on an earlier case holding that criminal proceedings cannot be scuttled merely because cross-FIRs are pending. A petition seeking writ of prohibition against the publication of indecent material on social media was disposed of without deciding the merits of the allegations.12,16,10,17
A few judgements turned on peripheral issues. One application under Section 482 was dismissed as withdrawn after the Court pointed out a defect in the prayer. In another, the Court examined the recall of a victim-witness under Section 311 CrPC, holding that a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC cannot undo her trial testimony. One order noted that the High Court's inherent power to quash exists even for non-compoundable offences to prevent harassment, though serious offences involving societal implications generally are not quashed.14,18,6
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 6
A writ petition sought Court-issued guidelines and an expert committee to shield minors from sexually explicit newspaper content. The Supreme Court held sufficient legislative and regulatory safeguards already exist, newspapers have internal regulatory systems, adults cannot be restricted to child-suitable material,…
DismissedOpenHigh Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR based on Sections 296 and 353 of BNSS, Section 67 of IT Act, and Section 6 of IRW Act. The matter was quashed after the complainant filed a consent affidavit confirming reconciliation and voluntary agreement to withdraw proceedings, adopted by the Court…
DisposedOpenAnticipatory bail granted (18.06.2026, Madurai Bench, Madras High Court, P. Dhanabal, J.) in CRL OP(MD) No. 11484 of 2026 to Samuel Kirubakaran, accused in Crime No.
AllowedOpenBail - Offences under Sections 75(3), 79, 196(1), 353(2) and 49 of BNS, 2023, Section 4 of TNPHW Act and Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women Act, 1986 (Crime No.
AllowedOpenPunjab and Haryana High Court PIL on indecent/obscene representation of women on social media; Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986 Sections 3, 4, 6; BNS Sections 294-295; IT Act 2000 Sections 67, 67-A, 67-B; POCSO Act 2012 Sections 14, 19, 20, 44; BNSS Sections 107, 115; writ of prohibition;
DisposedOpenJharkhand High Court (Ranchi) bail order dated 26.03.2026 by Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary granting regular bail to Bharat Jha (age 35, represented as a permanent Indian Army employee; in custody since 05.11.2025) in Cyber P.S. Case No.86 of 2025, Deoghar — offences under B.N.S.
DisposedOpen
Show 6 more
Muskan Ikran Ahmad inter-faith live-in relationship writ petition quashing FIR mandamus arrest harassment 2025:AHC-LKO:44016-DB CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION 6838 of 2025 FIR 0311/2025 87 BNS 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act Safipur Unnao dismissed cognizable offence disputed questions of fact writ jurisdiction affidavit missing UP…
DismissedOpenApplicant sought quashing of a charge sheet and criminal proceedings in a cheating and obscenity case but relinquished the quashing prayer, opting to seek bail before the trial court per Satendra Kumar Antil guidelines; court allowed two weeks to appear and barred coercive action meanwhile.
Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra, J.; Order dated 19.3.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:39315). Charge-sheeted accused Pawan filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside/quashing of, and stay on, further proceedings in Case No. 12900 of 2022 [State of U.P.
The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under IPC and IT Act sections instituted in a matrimonial dispute. Finding that parties had settled and no conviction was likely, the Court held continuing the trial was an exercise in futility and contrary to justice.
CRLW-1616/2025; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; D.B. Criminal Writ Petition (Parole); second regular parole 30 days; Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules 1958 Rule 9; adverse report Superintendent of Police Kotputli-Behror; District Parole Advisory Committee; life convict; Sessions Case 132/2019;
AllowedOpenA writ petition sought quashing of an F.I.R. alleging offences under BNS and the Indecent Representation of Women Act, claimed to be a counter-blast to the petitioner's own F.I.R. The court held a prima facie cognizable offence was disclosed and dismissed the petition relying on Neeharika Infrastructure.
DismissedOpen
Sunil Raye and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another
Outcome: DisposedSection 311 CrPC recall of hostile witness; recall order quashed; confrontation with Section 164 CrPC statement cannot undo trial testimony; victim declared hostile; FIR No. 455/2013 P.S. Sampoorna Nagar District Lakhimpur Kheri; Sections 323, 366, 376D, 354B, 506 IPC;
DisposedOpenQuashing of criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on amicable settlement — Petition under Section 528 BNSS to quash C.C.No.589 of 2023 (arising from Crime No.23 of 2022 registered under Sections 354A, 506(1), 509 IPC, Section 4 TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002, Section 67 Information…
DisposedOpenBail application under Section 483 BNSS in a case alleging cohabitation with the victim, capture of obscene photographs/videos and their use to break her marriage proposal.
DisposedOpenCRM(A) 2410 of 2025; Alijan Ansari v. State; anticipatory bail; Section 438 CrPC; Section 482 BNSS; Haroa PS Case No.426/2024 dated 19.09.2024; Sections 417/376/379/500/506/509 IPC; 67 IT Act; Section 06 Indecent Representation of Women Prohibition Act; custodial interrogation not required;
AllowedOpenMuskan Ikran Ahmad inter-faith live-in relationship writ petition quashing FIR mandamus arrest harassment 2025:AHC-LKO:44016-DB CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION 6838 of 2025 FIR 0311/2025 87 BNS 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act Safipur Unnao dismissed cognizable offence disputed questions of fact writ jurisdiction affidavit missing UP…
DismissedOpenRegular bail allowed under S.439 CrPC / S.483 BNSS 2023 (Suvra Ghosh, J.) in Nadanghat Police Station Case No. 99 of 2025 (Sections 376/506/509 IPC and Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women Prohibition Act); charge sheet filed, petitioner in custody over three months;
DismissedOpen
Show 4 more
Section 223 BNSS 2023 examination of complainant on oath before cognizance; notice to accused only after sworn statement; sworn statements and complaint copy to accompany pre-cognizance notice; process issued without recording statements vitiated proceedings; complaint case registration misc case ACJM-15 Prayagraj;
Mohammed Neyaj Mohammed Rais Alam @ B R Bhai @ M D Niyaj vs the State of Maharashtra
Outcome: AllowedRegular bail granted under Section 439 CrPC; obscene video filmed under guise of film audition and circulated online; applicant alleged to have funded operations, arranged filming and hosted the upload platform; parity with already-released Accused No.1; charge sheet filed; custody since 18.11.2023;
AllowedOpenMohammed Neyaj Mohammed Rais Alam @ B R Bhai @ M D Niyaj vs the State of Maharashtra
Outcome: AllowedRegular bail granted under Section 439 CrPC; obscene video filmed under guise of film audition and circulated online; applicant alleged to have funded operations, arranged filming and hosted the upload platform; parity with already-released Accused No.1; charge sheet filed; custody since 18.11.2023;
AllowedOpenMohammed Neyaj Mohammed Rais Alam @ B R Bhai @ M D Niyaj vs the State of Maharashtra
Outcome: AllowedRegular bail granted under Section 439 CrPC; obscene video filmed under guise of film audition and circulated online; applicant alleged to have funded operations, arranged filming and hosted the upload platform; parity with already-released Accused No.1; charge sheet filed; custody since 18.11.2023;
AllowedOpen