Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Under Section 363 of IPC

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

The Allahabad High Court in Himanshu Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another (2025) delivered by Justice Vikram D. Chauhan quashed criminal proceedings under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), emphasizing that mere talking to a victim cannot constitute enticing away for kidnapping charges when the victim voluntarily left home due to family harassment. 

What was the Background of Himanshu Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another (2025) Case? 

• An FIR was lodged on 25.12.2020 under Section 363 of IPC at Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, alleging that on 24.12.2020 at 7:30 PM, the applicant had enticed away the niece of the informant, who was aged about 16 years. 
• The alleged victim's family members had beaten her and given electric shock upon discovering her phone conversations with the applicant, leading her to voluntarily leave home on 23.12.2020 at 6:30 PM. 
• During investigation, the victim's statement under Section 161 CrPC revealed she left home alone due to family harassment and went to Siwan, remaining there for two days before being brought to the police station. 
• Medical examination was conducted on 28.12.2020, where the victim denied internal and external examination and stated before the doctor that she had left home voluntarily due to family harassment. 
• X-ray conducted on 29.12.2020 determined the victim's age as approximately 18 years according to the Chief Medical Officer. 
• The victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded on 1.1.2021 clearly stated she left the house voluntarily and that her family members had wrongly implicated the applicant. 
• The Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet on 19.1.2021 under Section 363 IPC, and the Magistrate took cognizance on 7.7.2023. 
• Notably, the victim was not made a witness in the prosecution's chargesheet, with only the informant and victim's mother cited as witnesses. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Legal Framework Analysis: 

• The Court examined Section 361 of IPC which defines kidnapping from lawful guardianship, requiring taking or enticing any minor under 18 years (female) out of lawful guardian's keeping without consent. 
• Justice Chauhan emphasized that for Section 361 to apply, there must be "promise, offer, inducement or force" from the accused resulting in the minor being taken away or enticed from lawful guardianship. 

Supreme Court Precedents: 

• The Court relied on Thakorlal D. Yadgdama v. State of Gujarat (1973), which established that if a minor leaves parental home "completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party," no offence under Section 361 IPC is committed. 
• Reference was made to S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (1965), distinguishing between "taking" and "allowing a minor to accompany," requiring "some kind of inducement" or "active participation" in forming the minor's intention to leave.

What is Section 363 of Indian Penal Code?

About:  

• Section 363 of IPC prescribes punishment for kidnapping, which encompasses two types under Section 359 - kidnapping from India and kidnapping from lawful guardianship. 

Punishment:  

• Section 363 provides for imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 

Section 137 BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023): 

• Equivalent provision to Section 363 IPC in the new criminal code. 
• Same scope: Covers punishment for kidnapping offences. 
• Continuation: Maintains similar punishment framework as IPC.