Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.43 seconds)

Bunty vs State (G.N.C.T.) Of Delhi on 16 March, 2011

17. It has also been held in para 8 of judgment titled as Bunty vs. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi in Crl. Appeal no. 846/2009 decided on 16.03.2011 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that :­ 18. Page 10 of 12 FIR No. 216/13 : State V/s Suraj : PS Begumpur : DOD: 06.05.2015 "8. In this case, the prosecutrix had accompanied the Appellant voluntarily without any use of force exercised by him. It is not a case wherein he had taken the prosecutrix after enticing her. Prosecutrix had travelled with the accused to different places outside Delhi without raising any alarm or complaining to fellow passengers that she had been taken away by force. If a minor accompanies accused voluntarily without any offer or allurement then offence under Section 363 is not made out. ...."
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 83 - A K Pathak - Full Document

S. Varadarajan vs State Of Madras on 9 September, 1964

In this regard, it would relevant to refer to the case titled as " S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras (reported as AIR 1965 SC 942)", wherein while distinguishing between " taking" and "allowing a minor to accompany a person" it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :­ " There is a distinction between " taking" and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though it can not be laid down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purposes of S. 361. Where the minor leaves her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she is doing , voluntarily joins the accused person, the accused cannot be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 778 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document
1   2 Next