NARESH VADILAL SHAH Vs. NOTAN N SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. with a prayer to quash the First Information Report No. 364191 filed at Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur on 30th August, 1991 alleging commission of offence under Section 363, I.P.C.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the petitioner who belongs to Rajkot (Gujarat) and who is a bona fide resident of the State of Gujarat married non petitioner No. 1, Smt. Notan N. Shah on 16.2.1982 at Jam Nagar, Gujarat. One daughter, named, Ami was born on 1.10.1985 out of the wedlock. Petitioner Naresh Vadilal Shah had gone to Maskat to earn his livelihood and there he is stated to be serving with a private company. The non-petitioner No. 1 is said to be suffering from Schizophrenia and for this disease she had been regularly treated at the instance of the petitioner. She had made an application dated 28.2.1988 seeking divorce from the petitioner but the same was withdrawn on 30th April 1990. The petitioner has stated that a telegram dated, 15.1.1990 was sent to him at Maskat to the effect that his daughter Ami has disappeared. Petitioner was called to Jaipur. He came to Jaipur on 23.4.1990 and found that Ami had been dis-appeared: He went back to Maskat on 21.6.1990 and came to India in July 1991. He came to Jaipur on 18.7.1991. He requested the non-petitioner to give the child for some time so that he could take her to grant parents. The child was taken by the petitioner with the consent of the non-petitioner No. 1 but thereafter, she lodged a report dated, 30th August, 1991 alleging that the petitioner had taken away the daughter Ami to Rajkot. On the basis of report a case was registered by the Police Station Shastri Nagar. The Officers of the Police Station, Shastri Nagar went to Rajkot and got the custody of petitioners daughter Ami from his parents the petitioner applied for and was granted bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C.

(3.) Petitioners case is that he had been in touch with his wife in India and had been regularly sending money for her maintenance and treatment. She had herself expressed that no harassment had been caused by the petitioner. She also wrote letters to the petitioner that in case he had any difficult the non-petitioner was prepared to help him. Accordingly to the petitioner, the custody of the minor child was never taken by the petitioner with intent of committing any crime. In fact, the daughter was given by the non-petitioner herself with full knowledge that the petitioner was taking her to Rajkot.