DASHRATHBHAI VAGHJIBHAI MALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being CR No. I319 of 2011 registered with Vatva Police Station for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC.

(2.) THE bare reading of the FIR indicates that the first informant ­ Valjibhai Vallabhbhai Ladva who is father of Khevnaben has lodged the impugned FIR. The bare allegations made in the FIR relates to the fact that on 26.5.2011, the daughter of the first informant ­ Khevnaben had gone to her school named Meghdoot High School and was to bring the result and after that the daughter of the first informant ­ Khevnaben did not return back and on inquiry, it was found that the present applicant took Khevnaben from the lawful custody of the first informant. It is further alleged that the daughter of the first informant ­ Khevnaben was aged about 17 years and 7 months i.e. minor on the date on which the said offence has been committed. It is further alleged that the applicant, in order to take disadvantage and to commit rape, has abducted the minor daughter of the first informant. Under the circumstances, the impugned FIR came to be filed.

(3.) MS . Moxa Thakkar, learned APP submitted that the applicant as well as Khevnaben ­ the daughter of the first informant have married and are parents of a boy child who has been kept in Anathashram at Rajkot. It is submitted that a specific statement has been made by Khevnaben that she was not forcibly taken away from the lawful custody of the first informant ­ father and has also denied the other allegations levelled in the impugned FIR. It is further submitted that as such Khevnaben was present before this Court on the last date of hearing and on that day also, Khevnaben has expressly made a statement that she stays with the applicant as his legally wedded wife and she was not removed from the lawful custody of the first informant forcibly by the applicant.