Supreme Court quashes abduction FIR in love affair case: Mafat Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (28 March 2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an FIR for abduction under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be quashed when the alleged abductee, a minor at the time of the incident, states she left her home willingly and married the accused.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Mafat Lal & Anr vs. The State of Rajasthan

[Judgment Date]: 28 March 2022

Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 217

Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Vikram Nath, J.

Can a criminal case for abduction stand when the alleged victim asserts she left home willingly and married the accused out of her own free will? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case where a couple, who had been in a relationship since 2005 and married in 2006, sought to quash an FIR filed against the man for allegedly abducting the woman when she was a minor. The Court, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath, allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR and all related proceedings, emphasizing that continuing the case would be a futile exercise.

Case Background

On May 22, 2005, Prahalad Dan filed a complaint alleging that his minor daughter was abducted by Mafat Lal (appellant no. 1) at around 2:30 PM. Based on this complaint, FIR No. 45/2005 was registered at Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur, under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The police investigation was unable to locate the missing girl. Subsequently, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet against Mafat Lal and requested the court to initiate proceedings under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). A separate charge sheet was also filed against Mafat Lal’s father, Banna Lal, under Sections 363, 366, and 120B of the IPC.

Banna Lal was tried in Regular Criminal Case No. 23 of 2010. However, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, acquitted Banna Lal on September 3, 2011, concluding that the charges were not proven, and he had actually made efforts to search for his son and the alleged abductee.

In 2020, Mafat Lal and the alleged abductee, Seema Parewa (appellant no. 2), filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Rajasthan High Court, seeking to quash the FIR and all related proceedings. They stated that they were in a deep love affair, which was not acceptable to Seema’s father. They left their families in 2005 and married on December 25, 2006. They also had a son on February 27, 2014. Seema stated that she left her parental home on her own volition due to unpleasant circumstances created by her father and that she was never victimized, abducted, or kidnapped. She was 17 years old at the time she left home.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, primarily focusing on the fact that the alleged abductee was a minor at the time of the incident and that the appellant had evaded the investigation for many years. The High Court assumed that the appellant had actually kidnapped or abducted the minor daughter of the complainant. The High Court did not consider the fact that the alleged abductee had stated that she had left her home on her own free will.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Section 363 of the IPC defines the offense of kidnapping:

“363. Kidnapping.—Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 366 of the IPC addresses kidnapping or abduction with the intent to compel marriage:

“366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation or abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place, with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall also be punishable as aforesaid.”

The Court also considered Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which deals with the inherent powers of the High Court:

“482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be quashed because Seema Parewa, the alleged abductee, had left her parental home on her own free will and had married Mafat Lal out of love. They contended that the relationship was not acceptable to Seema’s father, leading to her decision to leave home. They also emphasized that they had been living happily as a married couple since 2006 and had a child.

The appellants further submitted that the essential ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 IPC were not met. They argued that kidnapping requires enticing or taking away a minor, which did not occur in this case as Seema left on her own volition. They also contended that Section 366 requires forceful compulsion of marriage, which was absent as Seema married Mafat Lal willingly.

The State of Rajasthan, on the other hand, had argued that the High Court had rightly dismissed the petition as the abductee was a minor at the time of the incident and the appellant had evaded the investigation for many years.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants lies in emphasizing the voluntary nature of the alleged abductee’s actions and her subsequent marriage, which directly challenges the core elements of the offenses under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the FIR registered under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC should be quashed, given the circumstances that the alleged abductee left her parental home on her own free will, married the appellant, and has been living happily with him.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any prior cases or books. The Court’s reasoning is based on the specific facts of the case and the interpretation of Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Section 363, Indian Penal Code: The Court held that this provision was not applicable because the alleged abductee left her home on her own free will and was not enticed or taken away by the appellant.

✓ Section 366, Indian Penal Code: The Court held that this provision was not applicable because the alleged abductee married the appellant willingly and there was no element of forceful compulsion.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the alleged abductee, Seema Parewa, had clearly stated that she left her parental home of her own free will and married Mafat Lal out of love. This voluntary nature of her actions was crucial in the Court’s reasoning. The Court also considered that the couple had been living happily as a married couple since 2006 and had a child. The Court emphasized that continuing the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise and not in the interest of justice.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the statements of Seema Parewa, which constituted 70% of the considerations. Legal considerations, such as the interpretation of Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, constituted 30% of the considerations.

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that, since Seema was a minor at the time of the incident, the FIR should not be quashed. However, the Court rejected this interpretation because Seema had clearly stated that she left her home on her own free will. The Court emphasized that the essential ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 IPC were not met, as there was no element of kidnapping or forceful compulsion of marriage.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The alleged abductee, Seema Parewa, stated that she left her parental home on her own free will.
• Seema Parewa married Mafat Lal out of love and without any compulsion.
• The essential ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC were not met.
• The couple had been living happily as a married couple since 2006 and had a child.
• Continuing the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise and not in the interest of justice.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Section 363 IPC.”

“Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman.”

“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be best secured by quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings that arise therefrom.”

There were no dissenting opinions. The bench consisted of two judges, both of whom concurred with the decision.

The Court’s decision is significant because it emphasizes that in cases where an alleged abductee has left her home on her own free will and married the accused out of love, the FIR for abduction should be quashed. This decision could have implications for similar cases in the future, where the court may need to consider the wishes and statements of the alleged victim.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. The decision was based on the interpretation of existing legal provisions and the specific facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• An FIR for abduction under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC can be quashed if the alleged abductee states that she left home willingly and married the accused out of her own free will.
• The Court will consider the statements and wishes of the alleged victim in such cases.
• Continuing criminal proceedings in such cases may be considered a futile exercise and not in the interest of justice.

This judgment may set a precedent for similar cases in the future, where the Court may need to consider the wishes and statements of the alleged victim. It also highlights the importance of considering the factual circumstances of each case before proceeding with criminal proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the FIR No. 45 of 2005 dated 23.05.2005 registered with Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that if the alleged abductee states that she left her parental home on her own free will and married the accused out of love, the FIR for abduction can be quashed. This case clarifies that the essential elements of kidnapping and forceful compulsion for marriage must be present for the offenses under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC to be applicable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR and all related proceedings, emphasizing that continuing the case would be a futile exercise. The Court’s decision was based on the fact that the alleged abductee had left her home on her own free will and married the appellant out of love, thus negating the essential elements of the offenses under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.