Section 366A cognizance quashed where the victim disclaimed kidnapping and investigation found no role for accused.

The informant alleged that his 15-year-old daughter went to coaching on 11 July 2018 and did not return.

He lodged the FIR on 19 July 2018, alleging that she had been taken away on the pretext of marriage and that the accused’s relatives had threatened him.

The petitioners were relatives of the principal accused.

After investigation, the police submitted a final form and did not send the petitioners up for trial.

The victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was that she had left home herself after being scolded by her parents; she did not implicate the petitioners.

Despite the final form, the Magistrate took cognizance against them under Section 366A IPC.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

1. Whether the cognizance order and ensuing proceedings against the petitioners under Section 366A IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, given the final form and the victim’s Section 164 statement.

2. Whether the material disclosed a sufficient foundation to prosecute the petitioners for Section 366A IPC, including its requirement of procuration of a minor girl with the requisite intent or knowledge concerning illicit intercourse with another person.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, but the power must be exercised sparingly; a Magistrate is not bound by the police’s final report and may take cognizance if the investigation materials justify doing so.

Section 366A IPC requires the inducement of a minor girl to go from a place or do an act with the intent, or knowledge of likely consequence, that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person.

A Section 164 CrPC statement is not substantive evidence to establish guilt at trial, but may be considered, alongside other investigation materials, when assessing whether continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process.

The Court also relied on Krishna Mahto @ Krishan Kumar Mahto & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., Cr. Misc. No. 48023 of 2013 (11 May 2017), and referred to Suresh Garodia v. State of Assam & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 38, and Vinod Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 INSC 181, concerning consideration of investigation materials, delay, and inconsistencies between the FIR and a Section 164 statement when deciding whether proceedings should continue.

The Court accepted that the Magistrate could differ from the final form and that the seven-day delay alone did not justify quashing.

It nevertheless considered the circumstances cumulatively: the petitioners were not sent up for trial after investigation; the victim’s Section 164 statement did not support the allegation that she had been kidnapped and attributed no role to the petitioners; and the cognizance order did not disclose a sufficient factual basis for proceeding against them.

In the Court’s view, these materials undermined the foundation for prosecuting the petitioners under Section 366A IPC, and continuing the case against them would not advance the cause of justice.

It quashed and set aside the 18 December 2018 cognizance order under Section 366A IPC and the consequential proceedings in Piro P.S. Case No. 244 of 2018, insofar as they concerned Indu Devi, Awadh Narayan Singh @ Haridwar Singh, and Aman Kumar.

The application was allowed; the Court clarified that its observations did not determine the guilt or innocence of any other person.