VINOD KUMAR MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 2. 5. 2007, FIR No. 408/2007 was lodged by Devendra Pal Singh, father of Anjali Chaudhary at the police station, Gangapur City with the averments that a report regarding missing of his daughter Anjali was lodged on 30. 4. 2007 but on 2. 5. 2007 he came to know about adduction of his daughter by Bheem Singh, wife of Bheem Singh, Urmila, Vinod Meena and mother of Vinod Meena for the purposes of getting her married with Vinod and for extorting an amount of rupees five lacs. During investigation Anjali was recovered and her statements under Section 164 Cr. P. C. were recorded. She was also subjected to medical examination. The police after investigation submitted challan against the petitioner Vinod Kumar under Sections 363 and 376 IPC in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City and the ACJM Gangapur City by order dated 20. 9. 2007 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 363 and 376 IPC against petitioner Vinod and by the order dated 28. 9. 2007 committed the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City for trial. Petitioner Vinod Kumar and prosecutrix Anjali have moved this petition for quashing the proceedings arising out the FIR No. 408/2007 on the ground that even on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigating agency during investigation, no prima facie case is made out against petitioner Vinod Kumar. It is also averred that both of them have married to each other and are living as husband and wife and a child has also born from their wedlock.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned P. P. and perused the material available on the record of the file.

(3.) IN the case of Lata Singh (supra), in the similar circumstances where the prosecutrix was major and had married the accused with her free will, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have been pleased to quash the proceedings of trial, though in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of INdia, observing that: &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" That case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant time a major. Hence she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband or her husband's relatives. We are of the opinion that no offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the court as well as of the administrative machinery at the instance of the petitioner's brothers who were only furious because the petitioner married outside her caste. We are distressed to note that instead of taking action against the petitioner's brothers for their unlawful and high-handed acts, the police has instead proceeded against the petitioner's husband and his relatives. "