VIRAL @ VIKI NILESHBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this application the applicants have prayed for quashing FIR which has been registered with Nadiad Town Police Station being CR-I 57 of 2012 for the alleged offences u/Ss.363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3629 of 2012 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad.

(2.) THE facts that can be culled out from the record of the petition are as under :

(3.) AS can be culled out from the FIR, the first informant ­ respondent no.2 ­ father of respondent no.3, has lodged the impugned FIR. It is alleged in the said FIR that applicant no.1 use to visit the house of the son-in-law of the first informant Mr. Pankajbhai Joshi and because of the relationship with son-in-law of first informant, the applicant no.1 used to come to the residence of the first informant and because of this relation applicant no.1 used to talk with respondent no.3 ­ Khushabu. It is the case of the prosecution that first informant used to scold respondent no.3 and first informant has also further alleged that applicant no. 1 used to come very often and therefore the first informant also reprimanded applicant no.1. It is further alleged that even applicant no.2 was also informed about the same. However, on the contrary, applicant no.2 advised the first informant to control respondent no.3 ­ daughter of the first informant. It is alleged that on 25.3.2012 respondent no.2 was not found in the house. On inquiry, it was found that even applicant no.1 was not there and had gone to Ahmedabad to stay in Maninagar area. It is further alleged that on making inquiry from applicant no.2- the mother of applicant no.1 informed the first informant that applicant no. 1 Viral will not be available and applicant no.2 informed the first informant that he may do so whatever he likes. It is further alleged that thus applicant no.1 induced respondent no.3 who was a minor and has thus took her away from the lawful custody of the guardian and has thus kidnapped minor girl of first informant i.e. respondent no. 3 to an unknown place. It is also alleged that applicant no.2 as a mother of applicant no. 1 has cooperated with applicant no.1 and has thus committed offence u/Ss. 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code.