Voluntary accompaniment by a minor near the age of majority without enticement does not constitute kidnapping.

The applicant challenged an order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), which dismissed his discharge application (Exh. 4) in Sessions Case No. 23/2017

An FIR was lodged against the applicant under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (kidnapping/abducting a woman to compel marriage) of the IPC after the complainant’s daughter went missing on 30.03.2014

Investigation revealed the victim was 17 years and 10 months old at the time of the incident

In her police statement, the victim stated she had fallen in love with the accused and left her parental home voluntarily

1. Whether a prima facie case for kidnapping under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC is established when a minor, nearing the age of majority, voluntarily leaves her guardianship without inducement

2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissed the discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC despite a lack of evidence regarding "taking" or "enticing"

The court applied Section 227 of the CrPC, which mandates the discharge of an accused if the judge considers the charge groundless to prevent judicial harassment and wastage of time

It relied on the essential ingredients of Section 361 of the IPC, which requires "taking" or "enticing" a minor out of the keeping of a lawful guardian

The court further applied the precedent set in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC 942), which established that if a minor leaves her guardian’s house voluntarily without any active inducement or persuasion by the accused, the act does not amount to kidnapping

The court observed that the victim was nearly an adult (17 years and 10 months) and her own statement unequivocally indicated that she left her home of her own free will due to a romantic relationship with the applicant

The court reasoned that for an offence under Section 361 (and consequently 363/366) to be made out, there must be evidence that the accused "took" or "enticed" the minor; mere accompaniment without such inducement is insufficient for a conviction

Referring to the Chhatisgarh High Court’s reliance on Supreme Court jurisprudence in Deepak Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, the court noted that proceeding with a trial where the prosecution fails to meet the minimal threshold of a prima facie case would result in "sheer wastage of judicial time" and "unjust" harassment of the applicant

The court quashed and set aside the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) and discharged the applicant from Sessions Case No. 23/2017. Rule was made absolute