Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 759
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Khalid Eqbal, (Wrongly Mentioned in Complaint petition as Md. Khalid Iqbal), son of late Sajid – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Opp. Party
Cr.M.P. No. 2725 of 2025
Decided On : 21-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.323, S.341, S.363
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner (father) allegedly took his minor child, leading the mother to file a complaint alleging kidnapping and physical assault. The lower court took cognizance of the matter under the specified sections. The petitioner challenged the proceedings on the ground that being the natural guardian, he cannot be accused of kidnapping his own child and that other allegations lacked necessary legal ingredients.
Findings of Court:
The court held that a father, being the natural guardian, cannot be held liable for kidnapping his minor child. Furthermore, the court observed that vague allegations of assault without evidence or mention of bodily pain or disease are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt, and the lack of specific details regarding obstruction precludes the offence of wrongful restraint.
Issues: Whether the allegations made in the complaint constitute the essential ingredients of the charged offences and whether the continuation of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: Criminal proceedings must be quashed when the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are completely missing from the complaint. A natural guardian cannot be prosecuted for kidnapping their minor ward, and charges of hurt or restraint require clear allegations of bodily pain or specific obstruction, failing which it is an abuse of process.
Result: Criminal proceeding quashed; petition allowed.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P., Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
I.A. No.9585 of 2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition.
3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.
Cr.M.P. No. 2725 of 2025)
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 362 of 2024, whereby and where under, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband of the complainant called her to Dhanbad Railway Station with their son and took away the son aged about 04 years and when the complainant went to the house of the petitioner mar peet was done by the petitioner and his family members.
4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Ashish vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in MANU/MH/5272/2023 submits that therein, the Bombay High Court relied upon the judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Shri Ashok Kumar Seth vs. State of Orissa reported in MANU/OR/0264/2002 wherein, in paragraph no.8 the Orissa High Court has observed that the father cannot be booked for taking away his minor child from the custody of his wife because he is the natural guardian and therefore, the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
6. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgments of High Court of Karnataka in the case of Vipin Menon vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in MANU/KA/0093/1992, High Court of Kerela in the case of Ismail Aboobaker, Puthuparambil, Thodupuzha & Ors. vs. State of Kerala reported in (1967) ILR 2 Ker 313 (KER) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Md. Asif Ahammad vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR Online 2023 AP 580. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and in the absence of any bodily pain being caused to the complainant, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any allegation of wrongfully restraining the complainant, the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
7. Learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety then all the offences in respect of which learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case is in fact made out. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and afte
