High CourtsSingle Bench

Jayesh Kantilal Parmar vs State of Gujarat and Another

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 30 December 2010 · Citation: (2010) 12 GUJ CK 0059

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mukesh R. Shah, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15625 of 2010

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 499 words

M.R. Shah, J.—Present application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant - original accused to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/FIR being C.R. No. I-196/2010 registered with Unjha Police Station, District Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.

2.

It appears that Respondent No. 2 - original complainant has lodged the complaint with Unjha Police Station against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, which has been registered as C.R.No.I-196/2010 alleging inter-alia that her daughter aged 17 years 11 months has been abducted by the applicant to marry her. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the applicant has preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application to quash and set aside the impugned FIR.

3.

Shri Dodia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that as such no offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC has been committed by the applicant as alleged and that infact the daughter of the complainant ran away with the applicant voluntarily to marry the applicant as she was in love with the applicant and that subsequently the applicant has already married with the daughter of the complainant and therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/FIR as the same is nothing but abuse of process of Court and/or the law and to continue the said criminal proceedings against the applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant and now even to the daughter of the original complainant, who is now wife of the applicant.

4.

Shri Jayesh Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 - original complainant has submitted that at the relevant time when the daughter of the complainant ran away, she was minor i.e. 17 years and 11 months, however, he has requested to pass appropriate order as now her daughter has married the applicant.

5.

Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties and considering the fact that now the applicant has already married with the daughter of the original complainant who, at the relevant time when she ran away with the applicant, was aged 17 years and 11 months, this is a fit case to exercise powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it appears that the daughter of the original complainant ran away with the applicant voluntarily as both of them were in love and they have married now. This Court is of the opinion that to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicant would be abuse of process of Court and law and unnecessary harassment to the applicant and now even his wife i.e. daughter of the original complainant.

6.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present application succeeds and the impugned complaint/FIR being C.R. No. I-196/2010 registered with Unjha Police Station, District Mehsana is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.