12 Years On Gujarat High Court Discharges Man In Kidnapping Case Noting Victim 'Voluntarily' Left Home
The Gujarat High Court has discharged a man booked for kidnapping in 2014 after noting that the victim, who was on the verge of attaining majority, had voluntarily left her parental home. An FIR was lodged in 2014 under Sections 363(kidnapping) and 366(kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman with the intent to compel her into marriage against her will etc.,) IPC after the complainant...
The Gujarat High Court has discharged a man booked for kidnapping in 2014 after noting that the victim, who was on the verge of attaining majority, had voluntarily left her parental home.
An FIR was lodged in 2014 under Sections 363(kidnapping) and 366(kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman with the intent to compel her into marriage against her will etc.,) IPC after the complainant alleged that her second daughter was not found in their house and when she called on her daughter's mobile phone, the applicant allegedly received the call and answered that the victim is with his two brothers.
The complainant got suspicion that the victim might have been abducted by the applicant and thus FIR was filed. After carrying out investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet and the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court. The applicant filed an application seeking discharge which came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court in 2017, against which he moved the high court.
Justice Hasmukh D Suthar in his order noted that the discharge application was filed on the ground that the victim left her parental home on her own will and therefore, offence under Sections 363 or 366 of the IPC IPC are not made out though.
"Perusing the record, it appears that the age of victim at the time of incident was 17 years and 10 months meaning thereby the victim was at the verge of attaining the age of majority and perusing the statement of victim before police, it clearly transpires that the victim had stated that after passing her Std. IX examination, victim went to Junagadh and there she came in contact with the accused and she fall in love with the accused and due to such relationship, victim at her own voluntarily left her parental home," the court said.
The court further said that the concept of discharge in criminal jurisprudence operates as a constitutional safeguard, ensuring that no individual is compelled to undergo the burdens of a criminal trial unless the prosecution first meets the minimal judicially recognisable threshold of a prima facie case.
"Considering the concept of fair trial and safeguard provided under the Code reveals through investigation papers that no prima facie offence is made out and once offence is not made out and charge leveled against the applicant – accused is found groundless, in that event, it is the duty of the Court to see to it that the applicant is not put to any harassment and such trial is nothing but sheer wastage of judicial time and it is unjust to continue the prosecution against such an accused," the court said.
The court further referred to Deepak Vaishnav vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2026) wherein the Chhattisgarh High Court had acquitted the accused as the High Court found significant gaps in the evidence and had noted that the girl had been in contact with the accused and had voluntarily accompanied him.
Importantly, the court said, that the Chhattisgarh High Court had emphasized that there was no evidence showing that the accused had "taken" or "enticed" her away from lawful guardianship, which is a key ingredient for establishing kidnapping under Section 361 IPC.
The court thus allowed the plea.
Case title: AJAY JAGDISHBHAI PORDIYA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 926 of 2017