NILISH VALLABHBHAI BHALIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicants have prayed for quashing the First Information Report registered as CR No.I69 of 2012 with Babra Police Station, District Amreli for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. On bare perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the same came to be registered on 12.7.2012 and the same relates to the alleged incident which took place between 10.4.2012 to 11.4.2012.

(2.) IT is alleged in the FIR that on 10.4.2012, the first informant had gone out for some work of his tractor to a nearby village Dhasa from Village Babra. It is alleged that the first informant came in the early hours of 11.4.2012. The first informant has alleged that on 11.4.2012, the wife of the first informant informed him that daughter Jagruti has gone away somewhere in the night. It is further alleged that on inquiry, it was found that applicant No.1, with false promise to get marry and with an intention to commit the alleged offence, has taken away the daughter of the first informant from his lawful custody. It is alleged that the daughter of the first informant Jagruti is aged about 16 years. It is further alleged that on requesting applicant No.2 to give back the custody of the daughter of the first informant, the applicants have threatened the first informant.

(3.) MR . Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the record of the petition and more particularly the contents of the FIR. It is contended that the FIR is based on the false basis namely that the daughter of the first informant is 16 years i.e. minor. Mr. Vyas, relying upon the certificate showing the correct birth date of the daughter of the first informant, submitted that the real birth date of Jagruti is 1.6.1992. It is submitted that applicant No.1 and the daughter of the first informant Jagruti had cordial relations with each other and the same has resulted into a valid marriage between applicant No.1 and the daughter of the first informant Jagruti. It is further submitted that Jagruti and applicant No.1 solemnized marriage at Varahi Mata Mandir, Dediyapada, District Narmada on 13.4.2012. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are without any basis and are not true as the same are alleged after 3 months from the date of the marriage of Jagruti with applicant No.1. It is submitted that even the marriage between applicant No.1 and daughter of first informant Jagruti is registered under the provisions of Gujarat Marriage Registration Act, 2002 on 13.4.2012. It is submitted that as on date, applicant No.1 and the daughter of first informant Jagruti reside together and live a happy marriage life. It is further submitted that Jagruti ­ daughter of the first informant has also filed an affidavit dated 26.10.2012 which is placed on record, whereby it is contended that the present FIR is filed after creating false record and projecting that the date of birth is 7.8.1996, whereas Jagruti was major when she voluntarily left the house of the first informant. Relying upon the said affidavit filed by Jagruti, it is submitted that the mother of Jagruti had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Habeas Corpus being Special Criminal Application No.2358 of 2012 which came to be rejected by Division Bench of this Court (Coram: A.L. Dave, J. as he then was and Paresh Upadhyay, J.) vide order dated 18.9.2012. It is, therefore, submitted that the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and law and the same is filed with a malafide intention to harass the applicants. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice and quash the complaint as prayed for.