Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVI: Of Offences Affecting the Human Body · Of Kidnapping, abduction, slavery and forced labour
Section 366: Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
In plain words
Kidnapping or abducting a woman intending or knowing it likely that she will be forced to marry against her will, or forced or seduced into illicit intercourse, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to ten years, and a fine.
- The same applies to inducing a woman to go from any place by criminal intimidation, abuse of authority or other compulsion, for illicit intercourse with another person.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
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 also be punishable as aforesaid].
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 366
-
Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu
Trial Court found appellant guilty for the charges framed u/ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC and s.8 r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) of the POCSO Act. An appeal against the said conviction was dismissed by the…
-
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the order of the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/ss.302, 376 and 397 IPC.
-
IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS versus
Issue arose as regards sentencing the accused; about the rehabilitation of the victim and her child; and about adopting measures for adolescent well being and child protection.
-
Raju @ Umakant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 342, Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is justified.
-
Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for the kidnapping, rape/sexual assault and murder of a minor is sustainable.
-
Raju @ Nirpendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Prosecutrix, a minor village girl, was allegedly kidnapped on the pretext of securing her a job, and then gang raped by accused-appellants over a period of two months by holding her captive by threatening her life.…
-
Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan v. State of Assam
In a case where the appellant alongwith a co-accused was alleged to have kidnapped and murdered the minor daughter of PW1, the issues for consideration were: (i) Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence based on…
-
Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
The accused-appellant’s petition u/s.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR u/ss.366, 376 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 was dismissed by the High Court.
-
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder of the deceased and imposition of death sentence.
-
State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.
What are the essential conditions that must be satisfied to attract the provisions of Section 366 of the IPC? What are the essentials to constitute a trespass as criminal trespass? Whether the procedure provided under…
-
Asim Akhtar v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Whether there is a mandate to decide the application u/s. 319 CrPC before cross-examination of other witnesses.
-
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Respondent Nos.3 and 4, son-in-law and daughter of the petitioner respectively, made attempts to falsely implicate the Respondent No.2-a star witness in the Nitish Katara case on whose evidence the accused son and…
-
IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS versus
(i) When a Court deals with an appeal against an order of conviction, what are the essentials, which a judgment must contain; (ii) What was the duty of the High Court while ascertaining the offences u/s.6 of the…
- Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei
- P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
- Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of
- Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India & Ors
- Xyz v. Abhisheik & Anr
- Manoj Pratap Singh v. The State of Rajasthan
- Mohd. Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Nahar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- Nasib Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
- Manoj Mishra @ Chhotkau v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Aparna Bhat & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
- Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala v. State of Gujarat
- Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra
- Anil Bhardwaj v. The Hon’Ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
- Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Accused 'X' v. State of Maharashtra
- Nand Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra
- Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Lok Prahari, Through Its General Secretary S.N. Shukla v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Kumar @ Badka & Ors.
- Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Madan Mohan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
- Mahendra Subhashbhai Vankhede v. The State of Gujarat Etc.
- Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P.
- Raja and Others v. State of Karnataka
- Sat Parkash v. State of Haryana and Another
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh
- Md.All @ Guddu v. State of U.P.
- Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar v. State of Gujarat
- Rashmi Behl v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Bairam Muralidhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of U.P.
- Phool Chandra & Anr. v. State of U.P.
- State of Rajasthan v. Roshan Khan & Ors.
- Sunil Mahadeo Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra
- Shimbhu and Anr. v. State of Haryana
- Vikas v. State of Rajasthan
- Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors.
- Charanjit & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana
- Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana
- Lillu @ Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Haryana
- State of Haryana v. Basti Ram
- Sunder @ Sundararajan v. State by Inspector of Police
- Kumari Shaima Jafari v. Irphan @ Gulfam and Ors.
- Pooja Rana v. State of Haryana & Ors.
- Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
- Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Prem Prakash @ Lillu & Anr. v. State of Haryana
- Om Prakash v. State of Haryana
- Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana
- Murugan @ Settu v. State of Tamil Nadu
- State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant Shankarappa Patil & Ors.
- Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar
- Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. The State of Gujarat
- Alamelu & Anr. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
- State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal
- S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Anr.
- Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Parshotam Lal & Another v. State of Punjab
- Masauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam
- Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat
- Bhupendra Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P.
- Arjun Singh v. State of H.P.
- Neku Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
- State of M.P. v. Bablu Natt
- Rajoo & Ors. v. State of M.P
- State of Punjab v. Chatinder Pal Singh & Ors.
- Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat v. The State of Maharashtra
- State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar
- State of U.P. v. Munshi
- State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar @ Chhotu
- State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan @ Hemant Janardhan Wankhede
- State of U.P v. Surendra Kumar Solanki
- Naravan @ Naran v. State of Rajasthan
- Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali
- Tarakeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
- A.Geetha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
- Sta Te of Chhattisgarh v. Lekhram
- Vishnu@ Undrya v. State of Maharashtra
- State of U.P. v. Satish
- Prakash v. State of Haryana
- Visveswaran v. State Rep. by S.D.M.