CHAUDHARY KANJIBHAI KUBERBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed by the original accused Nos. 1 and 3 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short), wherein, the applicants have prayed that the FIR being C.R.No.I76 of 2010 registered with Harij Police Station be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THIS application was heard in last week. Today, the same is kept for dictation of judgment. The FIR being C.R.No.I76 of 2010 came to be registered with Harij Police Station against the applicants and another for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said FIR, respondent No.2 original complainant has stated that he had given an application before Harij Police Station, wherein he had disclosed that his daughter Ashaben, aged about 25 years, was missing. In connection with the said application, the complainant alleged in the FIR that on 28.06.2010 at 9:00 a.m., the complainant, his wife, his son and his daughter had gone to their field, at that time, his another daughter Ashaben was present in the house. When they returned from the field at about 1:00 p.m., his daughter Ashaben was missing. Therefore, he tried to search his daughter but he could not find her and therefore he gave an application to that effect before the police station. Thereafter, he came to know from his relative that Chaudhary Kanjibhai Kuberbhai and Chaudhary Lilaben, w/o Kuberbhai, were seen with his daughter in a jeep. He, therefore, made a search in his house from where he found that certain golden ornaments were missing from his house. The said ornaments were stolen by his daughter, Chaudhary Kanjibhai Kuberbhai and Chaudhary Lilaben. He has further alleged that accused No.1 Chaudhary Kanjibhai had kidnapped his daughter and thereby all the accused have committed the alleged offence.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Shri Dave for the applicants submitted that both the applicants are major. Applicant No.2 daughter of the complainant was admittedly aged about 21 years at the time of the incident. She had voluntarily left her house. School leaving certificate of applicant No.1 is produced on record. Learned advocate has further referred to the affidavit filed by applicant No.2 i.e. the daughter of the complainant wherein she has specifically stated that she had voluntarily left her parental house and thereafter married with applicant No.1 on 21.05.2010. The said marriage came to be registered on 23.07.2010. She had not stolen any ornaments as alleged by her father. Learned advocate further referred to the certificate of registration of marriage dated 23.07.2010 and submitted that when both the applicants are major and married there is no question of committing the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the affidavit filed by applicant No.2, there is no question of committing the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC. Learned advocate has further submitted that the respondent No.2 original complainant filed a petition being Special Criminal Application No. 1343 of 2010 before this Court. However, the said petition was withdrawn and therefore disposed of by an order dated 23.07.2010 as there was no wrongful confinement of the daughter of the said petitioner i.e. the present applicant No.2. The said order is produced at page 49 of the compilation. Learned advocate therefore submitted that the impugned FIR is nothing but gross abuse of the process of the Court. The said proceedings are initiated with malafide intention and with a view to harass the applicants and therefore this Court may quash and set aside the impugned FIR.