Decided on February 23,2007



- (1.) This petition has been made by the petitioners viz. Vivek @ Sanju and Anjali @ Afsana for quashing of FIR No. 160/2006 dated 6th March, 2006 under Section 363 IPC, registered at P.S. Nand Nagari, Delhi against petitioner no. 1 alleging kidnapping of petitioner no. 2. The petitioner's contention is that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife and had attained the age of majority. The petitioners being major came in contact with each other and they decided to be husband and wife and decided to solemnize the marriage without pomp and show and accordingly they tied the nuptial knot on 12th April, 2006 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamna Bazar, Delhi in presence of witnesses. Petitioner No. 2, prior to her marriage belonged to Muslim religion and was known as Afsana. She had embraced Hindu religion without any force, pressure, inducement or influence. She being a major, was free to adopt any religion of her choice, a constitutional right given to her. After her conversion, she changed her name to Anjali. The father of petitioner no.2 was trying to perform her marriage with an unknown person without her consent and desire, while, she was in love with petitioner no.1 and had disclosed this fact to her father also. Keeping this in view, she decided to go for marriage with petitioner no. 1 of her own free will, choice and consent. After marriage, the petitioners lived together as husband and wife. However, respondent no. 2, in order to break the matrimonial tie of the petitioners lodged an FIR against the petitioner no. 1 alleging that petitioner no. 1 had kidnapped petitioner no.2. It is submitted by petitioner no. 2 that since, nobody kidnapped her and she, of her own free will, left the house of her father and married petitioner no. 1, no useful purpose will be served if the FIR remains on record. Petitioners have apprehensions and threats that they would be harassed on the basis of this FIR. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 2 succeeded in getting arrested one of the witnesses to the marriage viz. Dharmender Rathi. The petitioners have therefore, reasonable apprehension that petitioner no.1 may be falsely implicated in the instant FIR. It is submitted that the FIR is an abuse of law and if it is allowed to continue, the respondent no.2 with the help of this FIR was bound to harass the petitioners.
(2.) Notice of the petition was served upon the respondent no. 2 i.e. father of petitioner no.2. The counsel for respondent no.2 has vehemently opposed the quashing of FIR on the ground that on the date of alleged marriage, petitioner no. 2 was below 18 years and she was not free to give consent to marriage. He argued that expression of love by petitioner no.1 to petitioner no. 2 and providing company, assurance of marriage and a place to live was sufficient enticement on the part of the petitioner no. 1 and even if, the girl had left the house of her parents of her own, it was due to the enticement of petitioner no.1 and prima facie offence was made out from the complaint made in the FIR and there was no ground to quash the same.
(3.) The statement of the Prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded before MM and she gave statement on 10th July, 2006 as under - ?I told my father that I am in love with Sanju and wish to marry him, on this my father gave me 4-5 slaps and told me that I was going to malign 'Deen' (religion) and this will endanger the religion and then told me that he would marry me off to some rich person. On my refusal to marry anyone else he threatened that he would kill me. Thereafter, he called one boy and that boy told that I would have to live with him for 2-3 months and thereafter I would have to live with his grand father. I told that boy that I was in love with someone else. On 12th April, 2006, I (after running away from house) married Vivek @ Sanju in accordance with hindu rites. First, I got converted into Hindu religion and then married him. After marriage we went to different places and I had been living with my husband. We have consummated the marriage and I wanted to live with my husband and he was like god to me. I was having danger to my life from my father and paternal uncle. I be protected from them. Before marriage my maternal uncle Mehtab had also behaved indecently with me.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.