Kidnapping and POCSO proceedings quashed where minor voluntarily eloped and no sexual assault was disclosed.

The complainant alleged that his 17-year-and-8-month-old daughter, Damini, had been enticed and taken away from his lawful guardianship by Akashbhai Pradipbhai Patel, with the intention of marrying her and committing an illicit act.

Hiteshbhai Pradipbhai Patel, Akash’s brother, was alleged to have assisted him and withheld information from the complainant.

On that basis, FIR CR-I-125-2015 was registered at Bharuch C Division Police Station for offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC.

They contended that Akash and the victim were in a consensual relationship, that their families opposed their inter-caste marriage, and that the victim voluntarily left her parental home. They subsequently married after she attained majority.

The complainant filed an affidavit stating that he did not wish to pursue the FIR or further investigation, while the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded that she had a love affair with Akash and had voluntarily left her parents’ house.

The Court also noted that Petitioner No. 3, Hiteshbhai, had already been charge-sheeted and tried in POCSO Case No. 67 of 2015 and had been acquitted by judgment dated 30 April 2017.

Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed the offences of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 363 IPC and abduction for marriage under Section 366 IPC when the minor victim, aged 17 years and 8 months, had voluntarily accompanied the accused?

Whether the FIR disclosed any act constituting sexual assault punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act?

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in view of the victim’s statement, the complainant’s affidavit, and the subsequent marriage after the victim attained majority?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Sections 363 and 366 IPC concern kidnapping from lawful guardianship and abduction or inducement of a woman for marriage or illicit intercourse.

Applying S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, the Court relied on the principle that where a minor of sufficient maturity voluntarily leaves her guardian and accompanies the accused without force, threat, or inducement, the accused may not be said to have “taken” her from lawful guardianship.

Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act require an allegation or material indicating the commission of a sexual assault; absent any such act, those provisions are not attracted.

The Court found that the victim was 17 years and 8 months old and that her Section 164 CrPC statement showed that she was in a love relationship with Akash and had voluntarily left her parental home.

The surrounding circumstances, including the alleged opposition to the inter-caste relationship and the victim’s subsequent marriage after attaining majority, supported the petitioners’ contention that the departure was voluntary rather than the result of force or coercive inducement.

Applying Varadarajan, the Court held that the factual foundation for alleging that Akash had “taken” the victim out of lawful guardianship was insufficient.

Further, neither the victim’s statement nor her affidavit suggested that Akash had committed any sexual act amounting to sexual assault under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

The complainant’s affidavit expressing unwillingness to pursue the matter also supported quashing, although the decision primarily rested on the absence of the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences.

Rule was made absolute to that extent.

In respect of Petitioner No. 3, the Court separately recorded that the petition did not survive because he had already been tried and acquitted in the relevant POCSO case.