VIJAYBHAI DHIRAJBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Hardik Jani, learned Advocate for the applicants and Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP. for State. Though served no one appears for respondent no.2 ­ first informant.

(2.) IT is suffice to note that the first informant is father of applicant no.2, a girl born on 31.3.1994. It appears from the record that the impugned FIR came to be lodged with Bayad Police Station, District Sabarkantha which came to be registered as C.R.-I No. 85 of 2011 on 3.12.2011 against the applicant no.1 only for the alleged offences u/Ss. 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. On reading of the FIR it transpires that the first informant has averred that on 23.11.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. applicant no.2 ­ Lilam the daughter of first informant was not at the residence. On making inquiry from the neighbours, mother of one friends of the applicant no.2 Jaiminy informed the first informant that she met Lilam on way and was informed by her that she has to go to village Jer at her uncle's place. On making inquiry it was found that applicant no.2 never reached village Jer and on further inquiry it was found that applicant no.1 ­ son of Dhirajbhai Patel was also missing. It is alleged in the impugned FIR that applicant no.1 is aged about 34 years and has abducted the minor daughter of the first informant and thus applicant no.1 has committed an offence of kidnapping and has thus alleged that the applicant no.1 has committed an offence u/Ss. 363 & 366 of IPC.

(3.) MS . Moxa Thakkar, learned APP. has submitted that as such applicant no.1 has married with applicant no.2 after attaining majority and applicant nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife and they stay together and living happy married life. However, as the chargesheet is already filed against applicant no.1 this Court may not exercise its inherent jurisdiction u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ms. Thakkar submitted that if the FIR is read as it is, it cannot be said that no offence u/Ss. 363 and 366 is made out.