Fact of the case :

In 1960, there was a man named S. Natarajan living in Nungumbakkam with his wife and two daughters, Rama and Savitri. Savitri became friends with a guy named Varadarajan (appellant) a few months before 30th September 1960, who lived in the house next door to theirs. Savitri and Varadarajan used to talk to each other from their houses. On 30th September 1960, Rama saw them talking to each other like this at around 9:00 A.M. She saw them talking on previous occasions too. So, she asked Savitri why she was talking to Varadarajan. Savitri told her that she wanted to marry Varadarajan.

Rama told her father about Savitri's intention, but he strongly disagreed with their relationship. On the same day, Natarajan took Savitri to Kodambakkam and left her at a relative's house to keep her away from Varadarajan as much as possible. The next day, Savitri left her relative's house around 10:00 A.M. and called Varadarajan, asking him to meet her on a certain road in the area. She went to that road herself. When she arrived, Varadarajan was already there in his car. She got into the car, and they went to a friend's house with the plan of taking that friend with them to the Registrar's office to witness their marriage.

However, they could not register their marriage. Though, they started living together as if they were husband and wife. They travelled to Coimbatore and then to Tanjavore. In Tanjavore, the police found them while investigating a complaint made by Savitri's father, who accused Varadarajan of kidnapping her.

Issues Involved

Whether the acts done by the appellant (Varadarajan) fall within the ambit of the word “taking” used in section 361 of IPC (137 1(b) BNS)?

Distinction between "taking" and "allowing a minor to accompany"

The Apex Court emphasised the crucial distinction between the act of "taking" a minor out of the guardian's keeping and merely "allowing" a minor to accompany someone. These two expressions are not synonymous, and the Court cautioned against equating them with the same meaning for the purposes of Section 361 of the IPC. The Court acknowledged that there could be exceptional circumstances where the two concepts might overlap, but in general, they should be treated as distinct. In the given case, the Court observed that the child was net taken by the accused; rather, it was the child who voluntarily accompanied the accused and the accused merely allowed the child to do so. 

The Court held that for the offence of kidnapping to be established, the prosecution must prove that the accused actively "took" or enticed the minor out of the guardian's "keeping."

Held : The accused in the given case was acquitted by the Supreme Court as the Court observed that the acts of the accused would not fall within the ambit of the word "taking" as has been used in Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code as the accused merely allowed the minor to accompany him

The Supreme Court said that there was a distinction between the ‘taking’ and ‘allowing a minor to accompany any person’. Something more has to be shown, some kind of inducement or active participation of the accused in ‘taking’ the person.”