Back
Denial of Abduction by Victim No Ground to Kidnapping FIR: J&K&L High Court
The recently clarified that a victim’s statement denying abduction is not a sufficient basis to a when the broader circumstances of the case present significant disputes of fact. In a ruling delivered by Justice M. A. Chowdary, the court emphasized that the truthfulness of allegations in a kidnapping case must be determined through a comprehensive probe rather than a at the initial stage.
Case Background The petition, filed by Ruksana Bano (Petitioner 1) and Nikhil Chokker (Petitioner 2), sought the quashing of FIR No. 0031 of 2025, registered under at . The case originated from a complaint by Ab. Aziz Khan, who alleged that his daughter-in-law, Ruksana Bano, had been abducted.
Ruksana Bano claimed she was never abducted and that she had willingly escaped from her matrimonial home to flee a forced marriage. Evidence submitted to the court pointed to a complex timeline: a marriage contract with Danish Khan, the informant's son, in , followed by another purported marriage with Nikhil Chokker in Delhi in .
Conflicting Arguments Counsel for the petitioners argued that the FIR was an "arm-twisting tactic" used by the complainant to suppress the victim's autonomy and that the investigation was being used to harass her circle of friends. Conversely, the public prosecutor and counsel for the complainant contended that the victim’s claim of voluntary movement was undermined by evidence of kidnapping and the potential commission of offences including bigamy and illegal trans-state transportation. They maintained that only a full investigation could uncover the truth behind the conflicting accounts.
Legal Analysis and Observations The court observed that the existence of multiple, contradictory documents—including a marriage certificate by the —and the allegations regarding a pre-existing, subsisting marriage between Ruksana and Danish Khan raised serious legal questions.
Incorporating the principle that
"
,"
the court underscored that the legitimacy of the alleged subsequent marriage and the circumstances of the victim's departure were matters for trial and thorough investigation, not premature closure.
Key Observations from the Judgment:
*
"The victim’s categorical assertion that she was not abducted cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for quashing a kidnapping FIR where the surrounding circumstances emerging from the complaint and the investigation disclose
."
*
"It is settled legal position that enticing away a married woman with intention to engage her in illicit sexual intercourse with someone else is a recognized criminal offence."
*
"The apprehension of the Petitioner No.1 with regard to threat to her life... can be taken care of by directing the Investigating Agency to examine her, at the place where she feels safe."
Court’s Decision Ultimately, the High Court declined to the FIR, dismissing the petition. The court ruled that the investigation must move forward to its logical conclusion, allowing the police to examine the evidence and record statements in a secure manner for the victim. By upholding the investigation, the court ensured that alleged crimes, including potential bigamy and the veracity of the kidnapping allegations, are subjected to formal legal scrutiny rather than being bypassed by the petition's claims of voluntary movement. This ruling serves as a reminder that the High Court’s to proceedings is not an alternative to the investigative process when vital facts remain in contention.
