Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128215 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6886 of 2025 Applicant :- Anant Alias Gopal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mool Chandra Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mayank Maurya,G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. 1. The present application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 126 of 2020, (State Vs. Anant @ Gopal and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 642 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Etah as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 03.01.2020 pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ist, Etah on the basis of compromise dated 07.02.2025. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 14.06.2019 has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C. against the applicants alleging that on 11.06.2019, his daughter (opposite party no. 3), while returning from coaching at about 08:30 A.M., was allegedly enticed and abducted by applicants. 2(i). After completing the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C. against the applicants. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer, collected the High School Certificate of the victim, wherein date of birth of the victim is 03.06.2002, therefore, as per educational certificate, the victim was 17 years old. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no pre- summoning evidence to constitute the essential ingredients of the offence as alleged against the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for both the parties submits that the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 3 solemnized marriage after attaining the age of 2 majority and they are residing peacefully as husband and wife till today, and settled the dispute by way of compromise dated 07.02.2025. 5. Heard, Sri Mool Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Mayank Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and Sri Chavi Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 6. The essential ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and kidnapping define under Section 361 of I.P.C. The aforesaid sections of I.P.C. are reproduced herein below: “361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.—Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. Explanation.— The words “lawful guardian” in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person. Exception— This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose. 363. Punishment for 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. 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 as defined in this Code or of 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 with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid.” 3 7. As per pre-summoning evidence as recorded the statement of victim by the Investigating Officer as well as learned Magistrate, there is no allegations to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C. 8. Keeping in mind, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 and Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur & Others v. State of Gujarat & another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and facts, circumstances of the case, the present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is allowed. 9. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 126 of 2020, (State Vs. Anant @ Gopal and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 642 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Etah as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 03.01.2020 pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ist, Etah, is hereby quashed. 10. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. If at all, opposite party no. 3 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application. 11. The parties may file the certified copy of this order before the court concerned within four weeks from today. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Ishan Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad