# Himanshu Dubey v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 36
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 28653 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/himanshu-dubey-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53932
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the charge-sheet
dated
19.1.2021,
cognizance
order
dated
7.7.2023 and entire proceedings of Case No.
9029 of 2023 under S. 363 IPC can be quashed
in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 482 Cr.P.C.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 361 & 363 -
Kidnapping from lawful guardianship -
Interpretation - Scope and Applicability -
"Takes" and "entices" - Requirement of
promise, offer, inducement or force -
Essential ingredients - Requirement of
inducement/enticement
or
active
participation
-
S.
164
Statement
-
Voluntary Leaving by Minor.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 -
Quashing of proceedings - Investigation -
Charge sheet - Failure to cite victim as
prosecution witness.
Held: Victim's statements under S. 161 Cr.P.C.
disclose that she left the home as the family
member had beaten her and electrocuted her -
Victim's statement under S. 164 Cr.P.C. before
the court states that she went alone from the
home and there was no one else along with her
and the informant has incorrectly given the
name of applicant - No inducement or
enticement proved - Mere being in talking terms
with another person resulting in victim leaving
home would not attract penal provisions -
Essential ingredients of S. 361/363 IPC not
satisfied - Prosecution has failed to show that
victim was enticed away by the applicant -
Charge sheet defective - victim not made
witness - no explanation provided - Chargesheet , cognizance order and the entire criminal
proceeding quashed - Application under S. 482
Cr.P.C. allowed.(Paras 11,13,15,22,24,25,26)
(E-7)

Case Law Cited
Thakorlal D. Yadgdama v. State of Gujarat, AIR
1973 SC 2313; S. Varadarajan v. State of
Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

List of Keywords
enticed away; voluntarily left the home; electric
shock; talking terms; kidnapping from lawful
guardianship; inducement; promise, offer or
force; cognizance; charge sheet; minor; lawful
guardian.

Case Arising From
Case No. 9029 of 2023 (State vs. Himanshu
Dubey), arising out of Case Crime No. 0382 of
9 All. Himanshu Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
37
2020, P.S. Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, under
Section 363 IPC, pending before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court/Room No. 17, Deoria.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Sri Bhagwan Dutt Pandey
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri O.P. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. (State of U.P.)

## Text

36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
incuriam and therefore no benefit can be
given to the applicant on the basis of the
case of Ashok Kumar Srivastava (supra).

41. Therefore, from the discussion
made above, I find no illegality in the
impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed
by
the
court
concerned
by
which
application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. of
the applicant to release him on default bail
has been dismissed.

42. Therefore, considering the facts
and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in view of this Court, the instant
application filed by the applicant is devoid
of
merits
and
stands
dismissed
accordingly.
---------
(2025) 9 ILRA 36
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 28653 of 2023

Himanshu Dubey ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Bhagwan Dutt Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the charge-sheet
dated
19.1.2021,
cognizance
order
dated
7.7.2023 and entire proceedings of Case No.
9029 of 2023 under S. 363 IPC can be quashed
in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 482 Cr.P.C.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 361 & 363 -
Kidnapping from lawful guardianship -
Interpretation - Scope and Applicability -
"Takes" and "entices" - Requirement of
promise, offer, inducement or force -
Essential ingredients - Requirement of
inducement/enticement
or
active
participation
-
S.
164
Statement
-
Voluntary Leaving by Minor.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 -
Quashing of proceedings - Investigation -
Charge sheet - Failure to cite victim as
prosecution witness.
Held: Victim's statements under S. 161 Cr.P.C.
disclose that she left the home as the family
member had beaten her and electrocuted her -
Victim's statement under S. 164 Cr.P.C. before
the court states that she went alone from the
home and there was no one else along with her
and the informant has incorrectly given the
name of applicant - No inducement or
enticement proved - Mere being in talking terms
with another person resulting in victim leaving
home would not attract penal provisions -
Essential ingredients of S. 361/363 IPC not
satisfied - Prosecution has failed to show that
victim was enticed away by the applicant -
Charge sheet defective - victim not made
witness - no explanation provided - Chargesheet , cognizance order and the entire criminal
proceeding quashed - Application under S. 482
Cr.P.C. allowed.(Paras 11,13,15,22,24,25,26)
(E-7)

Case Law Cited
Thakorlal D. Yadgdama v. State of Gujarat, AIR
1973 SC 2313; S. Varadarajan v. State of
Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

List of Keywords
enticed away; voluntarily left the home; electric
shock; talking terms; kidnapping from lawful
guardianship; inducement; promise, offer or
force; cognizance; charge sheet; minor; lawful
guardian.

Case Arising From
Case No. 9029 of 2023 (State vs. Himanshu
Dubey), arising out of Case Crime No. 0382 of
9 All. Himanshu Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
37
2020, P.S. Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, under
Section 363 IPC, pending before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court/Room No. 17, Deoria.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Sri Bhagwan Dutt Pandey
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri O.P. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. (State of U.P.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D.
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Bhagwan Dutt Pandey,
learned Counsel for Applicant and Sri O.P.
Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent.

2. This application is preferred by
applicant for quashing the charge sheet
dated 19.1.2021 as well as cognizance
order dated 7.7.2023 and the entire
proceeding of Case No. 9029 of 2023
(State Vs. Himanshu Yadav), arising out of
Case Crime No.0382 of 2020, under
Section 363 I.P.C., Police Station-Gauri
Bazar, District Deoria pending in the court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court/Room
No.17, Deoria.

3. Learned counsel for Applicant
submits that as per version of first
information report, the prosecution case is
that on 24.12.2020 the Applicant had
enticed away niece of first informant, who
was aged about 16 years and thereafter,
informant lodged first information report
against the applicant under Section 363
I.P.C. at Police Station-Gauri Bazar,
District Deoria on 25.12.2020 in Case
Crime No.0382 of 2020. The alleged
incident took place on 24.12.2020 at 7.30
p.m. while the first information report was
registered belatedly on 25.12.2020 at 19.40
HRS. but there is no explanation of delay in
the first information report, which itself
show that the entire story is false,
fabricated and concocted because of
malafide
intention
to
implicate
the
applicant in the aforesaid case.

4. Learned counsel for Applicant
further submits that during investigation,
statement of alleged victim was recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 26.12.2020
who has taken the name of applicant and
only stated that her family members had
beaten her and also given electric shock
that is why on 23.12.2020 at 6.30 p.m. she
left the house alone and went to Siwan by
bus and remained there for two days and
thereafter, she was carried to Police
Station-Gauri Bazar on 26.12.2020. The
statement of mother of victim under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded who
has stated about the love affairs of victim
and applicant. The Investigating Officer
has also recorded the statement of first
informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who
has
reiterated
the
version
of
first
information report.

5. Learned counsel for applicant
submits that victim was produced for
medico legal examination on 28.12.2020
where she denied for her internal and
external examination. For ascertaining the
age of alleged victim she was referred for
X-ray, which was conducted on 29.12.2020
and as per X-ray report the age of victim
was determined about 18 years by Chief
Medical Officer concerned.

6. It is further submitted that the
statement of victim under Section 164
Cr.P.C. was recorded on 1.1.2021, in which
she stated that she left the house and no one
was with her and the name of Himanshu
Dubey has been taken by her family
members willingly. The victim came under
custody of her family members and
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thereafter her medical was conducted on
28.12.2020 and X-ray was conducted on
29.12.2020 and thereafter, her restatement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

7. Learned counsel for Applicant urges
that from perusal of statements under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. there is no
involvement of applicant and the victim has
not admitted the fact that she eloped with
applicant, as such no offence under Section
363 I.P.C. is made out as there is no
ingredient for constituting the offence
under Section 363 I.P.C.

8. Learned counsel for Applicant
further states that Investigating Officer
without
conducting
the
investigation
properly and also against the evidence
collected during investigation submitted
charge sheet against applicant under
Section 363 I.P.C. and the Magistrate took
cognizance of offence vide order dated
7.7.2023.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State
submits that opposite party no. 2 lodged
first information report against applicant
under Section 363 I.P.C. with the allegation
that daughter of complainant was abducted
and victim who has been recovered and her
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has
been recorded and she refused to conduct
her medical examination and formal
medical examination has been conducted
and the statement of victim under Section
164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded and she
made
allegation
against
her
family
members regarding giving electric shock
and she stated that she herself had gone to
Siwan and her family members given the
name of Himanshu Dubey and first
information report has been registered and
on the basis of evidence collected during
investigation charge sheet under Section
363 I.P.C. has been submitted against
accused-applicant on 19.01.2021 on which
the
learned
Magistrate
has
taken
cognizance on 7.7.2023.

10. The first information report is
lodged by opposite party no. 2 on
25.12.2020 with the allegation that on
24.12.2020 at about 7:30 p.m. the niece of
informant, who is minor, is enticed away
by the Applicant. The aforesaid first
information report was lodged against the
Applicant under Section 363 of Indian
Penal Code.

11. During investigation, statement of
victim was recorded by Investigating
Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The
victim in her statement has stated that her
family
members
have
beaten
and
electrocuted her and as a result of the same
on 23.12.2020 at about 6:30 p.m. she left
the home and went to Pandey Biswa,
thereafter came to Gauri Baazar &
thereafter by bus came to Salempur and
subsequently to Siwan and thereafter she
was brought to police station.

12.
The
victim
was
medically
examined on 28.12.2020 where she has
stated before the doctor who examined her
that she had left the home voluntarily on
account of harassment by family members.
Further, doctor after examining the victim
has specifically recorded that no opinion
regarding sexual assault can be given.

13. The statement of victim under
Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code
was recorded before the concerned court
where the victim has stated that she is aged
about 17 years and on 23.12.2020 at about
6:30 p.m. the uncle of victim has beaten her
on account of talking to applicant and as a
result of the same victim sustained injuries
9 All. Himanshu Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
39
and he further electrocuted the victim and
as such she left the home alone and went to
Siwan. The victim in her statement has
specifically stated that she went alone from
the home and there was no one else along
with her and the informant has incorrectly
given the name of applicant as victim was
in talking terms with applicant.

14. As per learned counsel for
Applicant, victim was taken into custody
by family members and thereafter in her
second
statement
under
Section
161
Cr.P.C., victim has stated that she and
applicant were in talking terms over mobile
phone which came to the knowledge of
family members of victim and thereafter
Applicant taken away victim on 23.12.2020
at 6:30 p.m. after victim leaving home
alone and thereafter met the applicant at
Pandey Biswa. Thereafter, applicant was
with the victim till Salempur to Siwan and
came back on 26.12.2020. The victim has
specifically stated that during the said time
victim was with the applicant, the applicant
has not committed any sexual assault.

15.
The
Investigating
Officer
thereafter submitted chargesheet against
applicant under Section 363 of Indian Penal
Code and court concerned has taken
cognizance on 7.7.2023. A perusal of the
aforesaid chargesheet would go to show
that victim has not been made a witness
in the aforesaid chargesheet on behalf of
prosecution and only the informant and
Sandhya Devi has been made the witness
of fact. It is further to be noted that no
explanation has been offered by learned
counsel for the opposite parties with
regard to victim not being made witness
to
prosecution
chargesheet.
The
chargesheet has been submitted under
Section 363 of Indian Penal Code against
applicant.

16. The offence under Section 363 of
Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment
for kidnapping. Section 359 of Indian Penal
Code provides Kidnapping of two kinds:
Kidnapping from India and Kidnapping
from lawful guardianship. In the present
case, the issue involved in respect of
kidnapping from lawful guardianship. The
offence with regard to kidnapping from
lawful guardianship is prescribed under
Section 361 of Indian Penal Code. Section
361 of Indian Penal Code is quoted as
under :-

"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."

17. The provision of Section 361 of
Indian Penal Code would stand attracted
when a person 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
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
keeping of lawful guardian of such minor
or person of unsound mind, without the
consent of such guardian. It is imperative
for applicability of above mentioned
section of Indian Penal Code that there
must be any promise, offer, inducement or
force, from the accused which resulted in
the minor being taken away or enticed
away from lawful guardianship.

18. In Thakorlal D. Yadgdama Vs.
The State of Gujarat, AIR 1973 Supreme
Court 2313, the Supreme Court while
interpreting Section 361 of Indian Penal
Code has observed as follows : -

"9... The expression used in
Section 361, I.P.C. is "whoever takes or
entices any minor". The words "takes" does
not necessarily connote taking by force and
it is not confined only to use of force,
actual or constructive. This word merely
means, "to cause to go" ,"to escort" or "to
get into possession". No doubt it does mean
physical taking, but not necessarily by use
of force or fraud. The word "entice" seems
to involve the idea of inducement or
allurement by giving rise to hope or desire
in the other. This can take many forms,
difficult
to
visualise
and
describe
exhaustively; some of them may be quite
subtle, depending for their success on the
mental state of the person at the time when
the inducement is intended to operate. This
may work immediately or it may create
continuous and gradual but imperceptible
impression culminating after some time in
achieving
its
ultimate
purposes
of
successful inducement. The two words
"takes" and "entices", as used in Section
361, I.P.C., are in our opinion, intended to
be read together so that each takes to some
extent its colour and content from the
other. The statutory language suggests that
if the minor leaves her parental home
completely uninfluenced by any promise,
offer or inducement emanating from the
guilty party, then the latter cannot be
considered to have committed the offence
as defined in Section 361 I.P.C."

19. It is further to be seen that the
rigours of Section 361 of Indian Penal
Code will have its effect where the minor is
taken away from the lawful guardianship
without the consent of guardian or she is
allured or given any promise or inducement
or offer which has resulted in enticing away
the minor from the lawful guardianship.
The element of non-voluntary leaving of
minor from the lawful guardianship on the
basis of force, promise or inducement or
offer is an important aspect to attract the
penal provision. An eventuality may arise
where the minor voluntary and on his own
accord, leaves the lawful guardianship then
in such circumstances the applicability of
Section 361 of Indian Penal Code may not
arise. In this respect, the Supreme Court in
S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras,
AIR 1965 SC 942 has observed as under :-

"(9). It must, however, be borne
in mind that there is a distinction between
"taking"
and
allowing
a
minor
to
accompany a person. The two expressions
are not synonymous though we would like
to guard ourselves from laying down that in
no conceivable circumstances can the two
be regarded as meaning the same thing for
the purposes of S. 361 of the Indian Penal
Code. We would limit ourselves to a case
like the present where the minor alleged to
have been taken by the accused person left
her father's protection knowing and having
capacity to know the full import of what she
was doing voluntarily joins the accused
person. In such a case we do not think that
the accused can be said to have taken her
away from the keeping of her lawful
9 All. Himanshu Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
41
guardian. Something more has to be shown
in a case of this kind and that is some kind
of inducement held out by the accused
person or an active participation by him in
the formation of the intention of the minor
to leave the house of the guardian."

20. In the present case, as per
allegation in first information report it is
alleged that applicant has enticed away
victim from the home of informant as the
victim was in talking terms over mobile
phone with applicant. The victim in her
first statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C
has not supported the prosecution case and
has stated that she had voluntarily left the
home as the family members of the victim
have beaten her and electrocuted her.
Further, the victim in her statement under
Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code
before the court concerned has specifically
stated that uncle of victim had seen the
victim talking to applicant on phone and as
a result of same she was beaten and given
electric shock, as such she went out of
house alone. She has also stated that family
members of victim has deliberately given
the
name
of
applicant
in
criminal
prosecution.

21. It is further to be seen that
statement of mother of victim has also been
recorded under Section 161 of Criminal
Procedure Code where she has stated that
victim was in talking terms with the
applicant and wanted to marry applicant.
However, when she was asked not to talk
with applicant then the victim left the
home. She has also stated that she is
confident that the applicant has enticed
away the victim.

22. The statement of father of victim
(informant)
was
also
recorded
by
Investigating Officer who has stated that
applicant has enticed away the victim. The
statement of informant does not disclose the
manner in which the victim has been enticed
away by applicant. The statement of
informant only raises suspicion without there
being any material particulars as to how the
victim has been taken away by the applicantaccused. It is further relevant to note that in
support of chargesheet only two witnesses of
fact are cited by prosecution, the first being
the informant and the second being Sandhya
Devi, who is the mother of victim. Both the
aforesaid witnesses have not given any
material particulars or details as to how the
victim has been enticed away. Mere being in
talking terms with another person resulting in
victim leaving home would not attract penal
provisions. The statement of victim under
Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code is
not being denied by the prosecution/opposite
party before this Court. The victim in her
statement has stated that she was in talking
terms with applicant and she has stated that
she has voluntary left the home.

23.
The
material
particulars
and
circumstances with regard to enticing away
the victim by the applicant has not been
disclosed by prosecution. Mere talking to
victim by itself cannot be a circumstance
which would be treated as enticing away the
victim. The victim in her statement has also
alleged that family members of victim has
beaten her and electrocuted her and as a result
of same she has left the house.

24. The prosecution has failed to show
that victim was enticed away by the
applicant. The essential ingredients of offence
under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code is
not made out by learned counsel for opposite
party before this Court. The cognizance order
also
does
not
disclose
the
material
circumstances which were before the trial
court.
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. In view of the aforesaid, the
criminal proceedings against the applicant
in the above mentioned case is not tenable
under law as such the charge-sheet dated
19.1.2021, cognizance order dated 7.7.2023
and the entire criminal proceedings arising
out of Case No. 9029 of 2023 (State Vs.
Himanshu Dubey) arising out of Case
Crime No. 0382 of 2020 under Section 363
of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station
Gauri Bazar, District Deoria pending
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court/Room No. 17, Deoria are hereby
quashed.

26.
Accordingly,
the
present
application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is allowed.
---------
(2025) 9 ILRA 42
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
1996 No.- 52 of 2023

UCM Coal Company Ltd. ...Applicant
Versus
Adani Enterprises Ltd. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pritish Kumar, AAG, Vibhanshu Srivastava,
Suyash Manjul

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr. Vikram Nankani (Sr. Adv.), Pranjal
Krishna, Abhishek Dwivedi, Suhaib Ashraf,
Brijesh Kumar, Manish Mehrotra, Utkarsh
Srivastava

Issue for consideration
Regarding legality of order and judgment dated
31.03.2023 passed by the Commercial Court-I,
Lucknow

Headnotes
Arbitral tribunal-View by the Tribunal cannot
be said to be without supporting evidenceTribunal has taken note of the rival submissions,
the material on record as well as the evidence
to give a cogent construction to the terms of the
contract-cannot be said to be perverse-Arbitral
Tribunal is vested with the power and discretion
to deal with the evidence-it has been exercised
correctly-not bound by strict rules of procedure
or evidence. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. PSA Sical Terminals (P) Ltd. v. V.O.
Chidambranar Port Trust, (2023) 15 SCC 781
2. South East Asia Marine Engg. & Constructions
Ltd. (SEAMEC LTD.) v. Oil India Ltd., (2020) 5
SCC 164
3. State of Chhattisgarh v. SAL Udyog (P) Ltd.,
(2022) 2 SCC 275
4. DMRC Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P)
Ltd., (2024) 6 SCC 357
5. UHL Power Co. Ltd. v. State of H.P., (2022) 4
SCC 116
6. AC Chokshi Share Broker (P) Ltd. v. Jatin
Pratap Desai, (2025) 5 SCC 321
7. Batliboi Environmental Engineers Ltd. v.
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC
375

List of Acts
1.Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

List of Keywords
Power and discretion; not bound by strict rules;
Arbitral Tribunal; perverse

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s):Pritish Kumar, AAG,
Vibhanshu Srivastava, Suyash Manjul

Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Nankani
(Senior
Advocate)
with
Pranjal
Krishna,
Abhishek
Dwivedi,
Suhaib
Ashraf,
Brijesh
Kumar, Manish Mehrotra, Utkarsh Srivastava

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)