D. Jagan Mohan vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 2049 Tel

Telangana High Court

D. Jagan Mohan vs The State Of Telangana on 12 February, 2025

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.7179 OF 2019

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to

quash proceedings in Crime.No.886 of 2019, on the file of

Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. The

offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 363 of

IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The defacto complainant is the daughter-in-law of the

petitioner. On 28.10.2018, she lodged a complaint with

Vanasthalipuram Police Station alleging that her son who was

playing in front of the house was not found. She expressed

suspicion that her husband namely Satish Kumar Devulapally

and the present petitioner might have kidnapped the boy.

4. Even according to the complaint, it is a suspicion that

father of the boy had kidnapped the child.

5. Section 363 of IPC reads as under:

" Punishment for kidnapping:-

Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment

of High Court of Karnataka in Kushagra vs. State of

Karnataka through Khadebazar P.S., Belagavi and Another 1,

wherein it is held that father of a child cannot be charged for

taking away his minor child from the custody of his wife,

because he is a natural guardian and an offence under Section

363 of IPC cannot be directed against him.

7. An offence under 363 of IPC would be made out if a boy is

kidnapped from lawful guardianship. In the present case,

father is the natural guardian of the son. It is not mentioned in

the complaint, any Court had imposed any restriction on the

father/natural guardian. The complaint was registered only on

the basis of suspicion of defacto complainant. It appears that

there are disputes in between the spouses, defacto complainant

and A-1. Insofar as petitioner is concerned, since it is only a

2024 SCC Online Kar 68

suspicion without any basis, the proceedings against him

deserve to be quashed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 12.02.2025 dv