CHIRAG KIRITBHAI SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr.I.M.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 ? State of Gujarat and Mr.Virat Popat, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.

(2.) HAVING regard to the facts of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, this matter was taken up for final hearing.

(3.) THE facts as emerging from the record of the case are that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 entered into wedlock on 26.5.2002. It appears that the family of the petitioners had owned two apartments one at Sangeeta flats and another at Vardhaman Flats. After their marriage the respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 were residing at Sangeeta Flats. Subsequently due to her pregnancy, the respondent No.2 had gone to her parental home, where she gave birth to a son viz. the minor child Shalin on 3rd March, 2003. According to the respondent No.2, she was subjected to physical violence after her marriage due to which she was forced to leave her matrimonial home on several occasions. Lastly, on 19th October, 2006 the petitioner and his brother left her and her son Shalin at her parental home, after which they were residing at her parental home for a period of seven months till 28th May, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 had apologized and after settling the matter, taken the respondent No.2 and their son to his house. Thereafter they were residing at Vardhaman flats along with the other family members till 17th June, 2007. On 18th June, 2007 the petitioner and the respondent No.2 along with their minor son, shifted to Sangeeta flats and started residing there. However, on 19th June, 2007, the petitioner No.1 forcibly took away the minor child Shalin from the respondent No.2 and went away to Vardhaman Flats. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 had called her mother and both of them were residing at Sangeeta flats. According to the respondent No.2, the minor child Shalin is studying in H.B. Kapadia School and that pursuant to an application made by the petitioner No.1, the school authorities were not permitting her to meet him. It is also the case of the respondent No.2 that the petitioners have brainwashed the minor child to such an extent that he starts crying as soon as he sees her. Therefore, on 13th July, 2007, the respondent No.2, moved an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.22, Ahmedabad under the provisions of section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) praying for issuance of a search warrant against the petitioner herein.