Victim's Denial Of Abduction Does Not Warrant Quashing Of Kidnapping FIR If Surrounding Circumstances Require Probe: J&K&L High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an adult woman's categorical assertion that she was not abducted cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for quashing a kidnapping FIR where the surrounding circumstances emerging from the complaint and the investigation disclose disputed questions of fact requiring a thorough probe.The Court observed that the...
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an adult woman's categorical assertion that she was not abducted cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for quashing a kidnapping FIR where the surrounding circumstances emerging from the complaint and the investigation disclose disputed questions of fact requiring a thorough probe.
The Court observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings cannot be invoked merely because the alleged victim supports the accused, particularly when the material on record indicates that the allegations require investigation before the truth can be judicially determined.
The Court was hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), filed by Ruksana Bano and another, seeking quashing of FIR for offences under Sections 87 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
A Bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary, while dismissing the petition, held that the complaint could not be characterised as an abuse of the process of law merely because the alleged abductee had denied the allegation of kidnapping. The Court observed,
"The complaint... does not suffer from any infirmity, which may be classified into a case of abuse of the process of law in any manner, so as to quash the impugned FIR."
Background:
In the case before the court, the first petitioner, an adult woman, asserted that she had travelled to Delhi in December 2024 for a computer training course where she came into contact with the second petitioner. According to her, upon returning to Kashmir during Eid, her family members objected to their friendship because they belonged to different religions.
She alleged that she was physically assaulted, wrongfully confined and forcibly married to the son of the private respondent against her wishes. She further alleged that after the marriage she continued to face physical violence, coercion and sexual assault before ultimately escaping from her matrimonial home with the assistance of two friends and voluntarily travelling to Delhi to join the second petitioner.
The petitioners contended that since the first petitioner was a major and had voluntarily left her matrimonial home, no offence of kidnapping or abduction was made out. They submitted that the impugned FIR had been lodged only to compel her to return to Kashmir despite her categorical refusal to do so. The petitioners also pointed out that she had consistently maintained before the investigating agency as well as before the High Court that she had never been abducted by anyone and that she apprehended danger to her life if compelled to return.
The complainant opposed the petition, contending that the first petitioner was the legally wedded wife of his son and had been abducted pursuant to a conspiracy involving the second petitioner and others. He submitted that the investigation had already disclosed material showing that two accused persons had facilitated her transportation to Srinagar Airport before she travelled to Delhi and that she had thereafter contracted another marriage with the second petitioner during the subsistence of her earlier marriage.
The investigating agency also opposed the petition, submitting that the investigation had remained incomplete because of the interim stay granted by the High Court and that the allegations required a comprehensive investigation.
Pursuant to an interim direction of the High Court, the first petitioner's statement was recorded virtually before the Registrar (Judicial). She reiterated that she had voluntarily left Kashmir, denied having been abducted by anyone, expressed her intention to dissolve her earlier marriage and sought permission to cooperate with the investigation from Delhi because of her apprehension regarding her safety.
Court's Observations:
After considering the rival submissions and examining the record, the Court held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputed questions of fact requiring investigation. The Court observed that although the first petitioner had consistently denied the allegation of abduction, her statement could not be viewed in isolation while exercising the extraordinary power of quashing.
The Court found that the admitted facts themselves disclosed that the first petitioner had married the complainant's son, subsequently left her matrimonial home with the assistance of other persons and thereafter contracted another marriage with the second petitioner before approaching the High Court.
Rejecting the contention that the FIR deserved to be quashed solely because of the first petitioner's statement, the Court observed that the complaint, read together with the material collected during investigation, disclosed sufficient circumstances warranting continuation of the investigation.
The Court further noticed that if the first petitioner's own version was accepted at face value, it would still reveal that she had contracted another marriage during the subsistence of her earlier marriage. Referring to Sections 82 and 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Court observed,
“….enticing away a married woman with intention to engage her in illicit sexual intercourse with someone else is a recognized criminal offence under Section 84 of the BNS, akin to Section 498 of the repealed IPC. Besides, without dissolution of the earlier marriage of the Petitioner No.1, she is stated to have performed marriage with Petitioner No.2, which also constitutes an offence of bigamy undre Section 82 of BNS”.
Relying upon the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Soyab v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the Bench observed that "judicial sanctity cannot be given to an adulterous relationship which is apparently existing between the petitioner and the detenu." The Court held that the petitioners could not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court to thwart a lawful investigation into allegations which required factual examination.
While declining to interfere with the FIR, the Court balanced the interests of justice by recognising the first petitioner's apprehension regarding her safety. It directed that instead of compelling her to return to Kashmir, the investigating agency should record her statement at a place where she feels safe and secure in accordance with law.
Case Title: Ruksana Bano & Anr. v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 296