Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16.  If the statement of the prosecutrix, above noted, is taken into account, it becomes evident that ingredients of the offence under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code in regard to coercion, kidnapping or abduction allegedly committed by Sarfaraj, are not satisfied. The provisions of Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code are required to be considered in context of provisions of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code.  So as to satisfy the ingredients of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, it has to be established by the prosecuting agency that the accused/sarfaraj took or enticed the prosecutrix out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of the prosecutrix, without the consent of the guardian/respondent no. 4.  In the case in hand, it is the case of the prosecutrix herself that she of her free will went with Sarfaraj, lived with him, wants to live with him and is expecting his child.  Element of coercion and enticement by Sarfaraj is absent, although consent of the guardian had not been taken.

23.   A girl who has attained the age of discretion and was on the verge of attaining majority and is capable of knowing what was good and what was bad for her, cannot be said to be a victim of inducement, particularly when the case of the victim/girl herself is that it was on her initiative and on account of her voluntary act that she had gone with the boy and got married to him.  In such circumstances, desire of the girl/victim is required to be seen.  Ingredients of Section 361 I.P.C. are required to be considered accordingly, and not in mechanical or technical interpretation.

24.  Ingredients of Section 361 I.P.C. cannot be said to be satisfied in a case where the minor having attained age of discretion, alleged to have been taken by the accused person, left her guardian's protection knowingly (having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing) and voluntarily joins the accused person.  In such a case, it cannot be said that the victim had been taken away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. 

25.   So as to show an act of criminality on the part of the accused, some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian, is required to be shown. Conclusion might be different in case evidence is collected by the investigating agency to establish that though immediately prior to the minor leaving the guardian's protection, no active part was played by the accused, he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to do so. ( The Court in above regards takes a cue from the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (1965)1 SCR 243 S. Varadarajan versus State of Madras).

30.   In view of above, petitioner No.2 cannot be said to have committed offence either under Section 363 I.P.C. read with Section 361 I.P.C. or under Section 366 I.P.C.

31.  In the above noted facts and circumstances, we are of the view  that ends of justice would be served if the petition is allowed.

32.   The writ petition is allowed.  Accordingly, First Information Report lodged as Case  Crime No.-121 of 2014 under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station  Madiyawan, District Lucknow and all consequent proceedings are hereby quashed.