Gujarat HC Discharges Accused in Kidnapping Case Where 17-Year-Old Victim Voluntarily Left Home
The Gujarat High Court set aside a sessions court's refusal to discharge an accused under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, holding that a victim's voluntary departure negates the essential ingredient of kidnapping.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, sitting singly at the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, allowed a criminal revision application filed by Ajay Jagdishbhai Pordiya and quashed the order by which the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) had refused to discharge him in Sessions Case No.23/2017. The FIR, registered in 2014 under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, alleged that Pordiya had abducted the complainant's daughter. The High Court found that the victim, who was 17 years and 10 months old at the time, had left her parental home entirely of her own will, and that no prima facie case of kidnapping was made out on the investigation papers.
The FIR and the Discharge Application
FIR No. I-CR 23 of 2014 was lodged at Bopal Police Station. The complainant reported that her second daughter was missing from the house on 30 March 2014. When the complainant and her relatives called the victim's mobile phone, Pordiya allegedly answered and said the victim was with his two brothers. That response gave rise to the suspicion of abduction, and the FIR was filed under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.
After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet. Because the offences were sessions-triable, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and numbered Sessions Case No.23/2017. Pordiya filed an application at Exh.4 under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking discharge. The 8th Additional Sessions Judge dismissed that application on 24 August 2017. Pordiya then filed the present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC before the High Court.
What the Victim's Statement Showed
The discharge application rested on a single ground: the victim had left her parental home of her own free will, so the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC were not made out even on the face of the charge-sheet.
The High Court examined the victim's statement recorded before the police. The statement disclosed that after passing her Standard IX examination, the victim had gone to Junagadh, where she came into contact with Pordiya. She fell in love with him, and it was on account of that relationship that she voluntarily left her parental home. The victim was 17 years and 10 months old at the time—on the verge of attaining majority.
The Legal Framework on Discharge and Kidnapping
The Court set out the purpose of the discharge provision in criminal proceedings. Where investigation papers reveal that no prima facie offence is made out and the charge against the accused is groundless, the Court has a duty to ensure the accused is not subjected to harassment. Continuing such a prosecution, the Court observed, is “sheer wastage of judicial time” and unjust to the accused.
On the substantive law, the Court drew on the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision in Deepak Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2024, decided 9 April 2026). In that case, the Chhattisgarh High Court had acquitted the accused after finding significant gaps in the evidence. The girl had been in contact with the accused and had voluntarily accompanied him. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that there was no evidence showing the accused had “taken” or “enticed” her away from lawful guardianship—a key ingredient for establishing kidnapping under Section 361 IPC.
The Chhattisgarh High Court had relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, reported at AIR 1965 (SC) 942. That ruling holds that mere accompaniment by a minor, without inducement or persuasion by the accused, does not amount to kidnapping. The Gujarat High Court applied the same reasoning to the facts before it.
Outcome
The revision application was allowed. The impugned order dated 24 August 2017 passed below Exh.4 by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No.23/2017 was quashed and set aside. The Rule was made absolute. The record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the concerned court. Direct service was permitted.