Finding that a 17-year-old voluntarily left home to be with her boyfriend, Gujarat HC quashes kidnapping and POCSO case

The complainant’s daughter, born on 22 August 1999, did not return from college on 22 June 2017.

The complainant found that the petitioner was also absent from his residence and that his daughter’s certificates were missing, and lodged an FIR alleging offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act.

The petitioner contended that the daughter had voluntarily left home because of their relationship, later married him after attaining the age of marriage, and had stated in an affidavit that she left of her own accord.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings; the original complainant did not appear, while the State opposed the application.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings disclosed offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, given the court’s assessment that the daughter had left home voluntarily and without threat, coercion or inducement.

2. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings for the alleged offence under Section 18 of the POCSO Act should also be quashed in the circumstances.

The petition concerned Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act.

The Court relied on S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, and treated the distinction between a minor being taken or induced and voluntarily leaving home as relevant to the kidnapping analysis.

It concluded that, on the circumstances before it, no case under the charged provisions was made out.

The Court considered the FIR alongside the daughter’s affidavit and the petitioner’s submissions concerning their relationship and her voluntary departure from home.

It accepted that she had left without threat, coercion or allurement, and took account of her account that her father was pressuring her to marry another person.

Applying the principle it drew from S. Varadarajan, the Court found that the circumstances did not establish a case under Sections 363 or 366 of the IPC or Section 18 of the POCSO Act.

The Rule was made absolute to that extent.