The court established that actions taken by a minor nearing the age of majority, when coupled with voluntary choice, negate allegations of kidnapping under IPC.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing FIR No.38/2021 dated 07.002.2021 registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar East for offences under Section 363 IPC.

2. The instant FIR was registered on the complaint of one Chanda Devi W/o Jugal Mandal. It is stated that the complainant is a housewife and lives at C-405, Peeragarhi Camp, Paschim Vihar, East Delhi, along with her husband and six children, out of which four are girls and two are boys. It is stated that her youngest daughter "K" is studying in 11th standard. It is further stated that on 06.02.2021 "K" went to school and did not return back. It is stated that "K" was born on 15.03.2003, she has wheatish complexion and her height is about 4'10". It is stated that on 06.02.2021 she had worn her school uniform. It is stated that the complainant apprehended that Raj Kumar Chaurasia (the petitioner herein) S/o Suraj Chaurasia R/o Swarup Nagar, would have kidnapped "K". On the said complaint FIR No.38/2021 dated 07.002.2021 was registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar East for offences under Section 363 IPC.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the abovementioned FIR.

4. Notice was issued on 23.06.2021. On 04.08.2021, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee was requested to provide a counsel for the complainant. Ms. Rakshi Dubey, learned Counsel has appeared for the complainant.

5. Status Report has been filed. It is stated in the Status Report that "K" appeared before the Investigating Officer on 23.07.2021 through her counsel. It is stated that the Investigating Officer recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement, "K" stated that she was in love with the petitioner herein but her parents were against the relationship and they used to beat her. She further stated that on 06.02.2021 she went to the petitioner herein at Azadpur Sabzi Mandi and they got married on 02.03.2021. She stated that she is happy with the petitioner herein and wants to reside with him and does not want to go with her parents. The school records were verified and the date of birth of "K" was found to be 15.03.2003, therefore, the date on which she went missing, her age was 17 years 10 months & 22 days and the date on which she got married to the petitioner herein her age was 17 years 11 months & 12 days.

6. Mr. Rajesh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the facts disclose that the petitioner had not induced "K" and had not taken her out of lawful guardianship of her parents. He states that it was "K" who went to the petitioner and asked him to take her away from her parents. He, therefore, states that the offence of kidnapping from the lawful guardianship of the parents of "K" is not made out against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, (1965) 1 SCR 243.

7. Per contra, Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, learned APP for the State, opposes the instant petition by contending that the petitioner has committed the offence of kidnapping. She states that the question as to whether the petitioner herein induced "K" or not is a matter of trial and cannot be decided at this juncture.

8. Ms. Rakhi Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, adopts the contentions made by the learned APP for the State and submits that in the facts of the present case, offence under Section 363 IPC is made out against the petitioner and only trial would decide as to wheth