Voluntary departure without active taking or enticement does not attract Sections 363 or 366 IPC.

The applicant invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR I–66 of 2019 registered at Olpad Police Station, Surat, for offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The complainant, father of the victim, alleged that on 14 February 2019 his daughter, who was approximately 17 years and a few months old, left for classes and thereafter went away in a four-wheeler with the applicant, who had allegedly abducted or enticed her on the pretext of marriage.

The applicant contended that the victim had voluntarily left her parental home due to their love affair and had subsequently married him after attaining majority on 28 May 2020; the marriage was registered on 30 May 2020.

The victim also filed an affidavit stating that she had left voluntarily and had married the applicant after attaining majority.

The State and the complainant opposed quashing, arguing that the victim was a minor at the relevant time and that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case.

Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed the offences of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 363 IPC or abducting a woman with intent to compel marriage under Section 366 IPC?

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings in view of the victim’s voluntary departure, subsequent attainment of majority, and marriage with the applicant?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Sections 363 and 366 IPC were the substantive provisions invoked in the FIR: Section 363 concerns kidnapping from lawful guardianship, while Section 366 concerns kidnapping or abducting a woman with the intent that she may be compelled to marry or be illicitly induced.

The Court relied on S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, which distinguishes between “taking” and “enticing” a minor; kidnapping requires an active role by the accused in causing or inducing the minor to leave the lawful guardian, and the minor’s mental attitude is not irrelevant to determining whether the accused took or enticed her.

The Court found that the victim had voluntarily left her parents’ home when she was 17 years and above and had taken the decision to leave of her own volition.

Applying the principle in S. Varadarajan, the Court held that the facts did not establish the requisite active “taking” or “enticing” by the applicant.

The subsequent marriage, which was not disputed by either the State or the complainant, further supported the applicant’s case that the relationship was consensual in substance, although the victim was below 18 at the time of the incident.

On these facts, the Court concluded that the essential ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 IPC were not made out and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would not serve the ends of justice.

FIR I–66 of 2019 registered at Olpad Police Station, Surat, dated 15 June 2019, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside. The application was allowed, the Rule was made absolute, and direct service was permitted.