Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme Court has held that Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman.

Section 366 of IPC reads as follows:

"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;....."

A division bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Vikram Nath was of the view that such an offence would not be made out once the abductee states that she was in love with the abductor and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married the said abductor on her own free will without any influence being exercised by him.

Court further held that kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the for the offence under Section 363 IPC.

One Prahalad Dan gave a written complaint stating that his minor daughter (appellant no 2) had been abducted by the appellant no.1 Mafat Lal, in 2005. On the said complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Investigation was commenced but the whereabouts of the missing girl could not be traced.

Accordingly, a charge-sheet came to be filed against Mafat Lal under the aforesaid Sections and a request was made to the court to initiate proceedings under Section 299 CrPC.

In 2020, the Mafat Lal along with the abductee Seema Parewa (appellant no.2) filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Rajasthan High Court praying for quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

In the said petition it was stated that Mafat Lal and Seema were well known to each other and were into a deep love affair, which relationship was not acceptable to the Seema's father, which is why they parted from their families and got married in 2006.

The High Court being swayed with the fact that the abductee was a minor at the time when she left her home and that Mafat Lal had evaded the investigation while being successful in keeping away from the process of law for several years, refused to entertain their application.

Before the top court, the couple submitted that they were married since December 2006 and have been living happily and were blessed with a son in the year 2014 who would now be 8 years old.

Noting that no fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for the couple, the court ordered thus,

"... the ends of justice would be best secured by quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings that arise therefrom. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed."

Case Title: MAFAT LAL & ANR vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN