Last Updated:
The case originated from an FIR lodged by the victim’s uncle, alleging that Dubey had “enticed” his 16-year-old niece away
The HC’s scrutiny centred on the victim’s own statements, which contradicted the core allegation of kidnapping. (File)
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a kidnapping case against a man, emphasising that the prosecution failed to prove the element of “enticement” crucial to the charge.
The single-judge bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan allowed an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by the accused, Himanshu Dubey.
Recommended Stories
The application sought to quash the charge sheet and all proceedings related to a case registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case originated from an FIR lodged by the victim’s uncle, alleging that Dubey had “enticed” his 16-year-old niece away.
The HC’s scrutiny centred on the victim’s own statements, which contradicted the core allegation of kidnapping. In her statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she had left her home alone, a day before the alleged incident, due to severe harassment. She only stated that her family members had beaten her and also given electric shock, that is why on 23.12.2020 at 6.30 p.m. she left the house alone and went to Siwan by bus, the court noted.
This account was further solidified in her statement recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The victim reiterated that she left home by herself and that the applicant’s name was taken by her family members “willingly” because she was on talking terms with him. She also narrated that her uncle had beaten her and given her an electric shock after catching her talking to the applicant on her phone, which served as the reason for her departure.
The bench also considered the victim’s age, as determined by a medical examination. While the FIR stated she was 16, an X-ray report showed her age to be approximately 18 years.
The HC observed that the prosecution’s charge sheet was fundamentally flawed, as it did not list the victim as a witness of fact. Instead, it relied solely on the testimony of her father and mother, who, according to the court, “have not given any material particulars or details as to how the victim has been taken away by the accused-appellant”.
Referring to the Supreme Court precedents, the court clarified the legal requirements for a kidnapping charge. It cited the distinction between “taking” or “enticing” a minor and a minor willingly leaving their lawful guardianship. The court underscored that for the offence of kidnapping to be made out, there must be “some kind of inducement, promise, or force” that causes the minor to leave their home.
“The statutory language suggests that if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence as defined in Section 361 I.P.C.,” the court said, quoting the Supreme Court.
The court explicitly stated, “The material particulars and circumstances with regard to enticing away the victim by the applicant has not been disclosed by prosecution.”
“Mere talking to victim by itself cannot be a circumstance which would be treated as enticing away the victim,” the judgment concluded.
Given the inconsistencies and the victim’s own statements, the court held that the entire criminal proceedings against the accused were “not tenable under law.” As a result, the charge sheet, cognizance order, and the entire criminal proceedings were quashed.
About the Author
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr…Read More
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr… Read More
September 17, 2025, 16:15 IST
Loading comments…
Read More
