Recently, the Allahabad High Court dealt with a criminal matter concerning allegations of abduction under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code against Himanshu Dubey in Deoria. The Court quashed the charge sheet, cognizance order, and the entire criminal proceedings, holding that the victim voluntarily left her home and that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any inducement, promise, or force by the accused. The Court observed that mere communication between a minor and an adult does not constitute the offence of kidnapping under law.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from an FIR lodged by the informant alleging that his niece, a minor, had been enticed away by the applicant. The informant claimed that the victim left her home on a specific date and time and implicated the applicant. During investigation, the victim stated that she left home voluntarily after being beaten and subjected to electric shocks by her family members. She was later recovered by the police. The victim underwent medical examination and age determination, and her statements under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, through counsel, argued that the victim had voluntarily left her home due to harassment by her family. He emphasized that there was no evidence of force, inducement, or any promise given by him to the victim. Counsel further pointed out that the charge sheet failed to include the victim as a prosecution witness and that the statements of other witnesses did not provide material particulars of how the victim was allegedly enticed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State, represented by counsel, contended that the FIR was lodged against the applicant under Section 363 IPC, alleging abduction of the minor. The State argued that statements of the victim under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C., along with medical reports, supported the claim that the accused enticed the minor away from lawful guardianship.
Observations of the Court:
The Court extensively examined the statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., medical evidence, and relevant provisions of Sections 359, 361, and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including Thakorlal D. Yadgdama v. State of Gujarat and S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, the Court noted that, “If the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the accused, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence as defined in Section 361 IPC… mere talking to the victim by itself cannot be a circumstance which would be treated as enticing away the victim".
The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of kidnapping under Section 363 IPC, as there was no evidence of inducement, promise, or force by the applicant. It highlighted that statements of the informant and other witnesses did not disclose material particulars of how the victim was allegedly enticed. The Court concluded that the FIR was based on suspicion and that the victim voluntarily left her home due to family harassment.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the above, the Allahabad High Court quashed the charge sheet dated 19.1.2021, the cognizance order dated 7.7.2023, and the entire criminal proceedings. The criminal proceedings were declared untenable under law, and the petition was allowed.
Case Title: Himanshu Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Application U/S 482 No. - 28653 of 2023
Coram: Justice Vikram D. Chauhan
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Bhagwan Dutt Pandey
Advocate for Respondent: G.A.
Picture Source :
