Mehulkumar Jantilal Makwana vs The State of Gujarat and 1 Another

R.M. Chhaya, J.—By way of this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicant has prayed for quashing the FIR bearing CR No. I-65 of 2006 registered with Bhiloda Police Station, District Sabarkantha for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. The facts which can be culled out from the record of the application are as under:-

Respondent No. 2 - first informant lodged the impugned FIR with Bhiloda Police Station on 20.7.2006 against the present applicant alleging that the daughter of the first informant named Nikitaben who was studying in 10th Standard and was aged about 17 years and 4 months has been abducted by the present applicant. It is alleged in the impugned FIR that the daughter of the first informant had developed cordial relations with the present applicant. The main allegation which is made in the impugned FIR is that the accused induced the minor daughter of the first informant - Nikitaben and took her away from the lawful custody of the guardian i.e. first informant. It appears from the FIR that the alleged incident took place on 3.4.2006, whereas the FIR was lodged on 20.7.2006 i.e. after more than 3 months.

The applicant who is an accused before this Court has contended that the date of birth of the daughter of the first informant is 23.12.1987 and has further contended that on her attaining majority, the applicant has married the daughter of the first informant - Nikitaben and are at present staying as husband and wife together. The applicant has further relied upon the statement made by the daughter of the first informant - Nikitaben before the Magistrate before whom the proceedings for bail were initiated. The order dated 14.9.2006 passed by the JMFC, Bhiloda clearly indicates that the girl - Nikitaben has shown willingness to go with her husband. MR. R.J. Goswami, learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon the marriage certificate at Annexure-C to the application which indicates that the applicant and the-daughter of respondent No. 2 - first informant got married on 10.4.2006. It is therefore submitted that in view of this fact, it cannot be said that any offence u/s 363 and/or 366 of the IPC is culled out from reading the FIR as it is.

It may be noted that though served, the first informant - respondent No. 2 has not appeared before this Court.

Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP has placed on record the communication dated 20.3.2013 addressed by the Circle Police Inspector, Bhiloda Circle, Bhiloda which indicates that in order to inform that the present application is listed for final hearing before this Court, respondent No. 2 was informed by the police authorities on 13.3.2013. It further indicates that the first informant-respondent No. 2 has severed relations with daughter Nikitaben after the statement came to be made by her before the Magistrate that she intends to stay with her husband - the present applicant. The statement made by the first informant before the police on 13.3.2013 also indicates the same fact.

Considering the date of birth as per Annexure-B to this application which is a photo copy of the birth certificate issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, State of Gujarat at Bhiloda, it transpires that the date of birth of the daughter of the first informant - respondent No. 2 Nikitaben is 23.12.1987. It is pointed out by MR. Goswami, learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant and Nikitaben have married and are staying together as husband and wife. Considering the statement made before the JMFC therefore, even if the allegations levelled in the FIR is taken at its face value, it cannot be said that the daughter of the first informant was abducted by the present applicant from lawful custody of the first informant i.e. her mother and therefore, the impugned FIR does not disclose prima facie any offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. It is also an admitted position that on attaining majority, the present applicant has married the daughter of the first informant Nikitaben and lives happy married life since the date of marriage.

At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sangita Rani (Smt) Alias Mehnaz Jahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 715 , wherein it has been held as under:-

That, in a situation where both the spouse are major, and there has been a valid marriage in accordance with law, and both of them are living together, the marriage should be sustained and nothing should be allowed to happen which would affect that position. The Supreme Court had, in the facts of the said case, cautioned the parents to accept the situation and create no problem for the petitioner and her husband. It was observed that, ordinarily, the Court does not interfere at investigation stage in a criminal matter, but in the special facts indicated therein, it would be necessary to quash the pending investigation initiated by the father of the petitioner.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, observed as under:-

The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severally punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such treats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the above-referred judgments, it is an admitted position that the daughter of the first informant on her attaining majority has married the applicant which is a valid marriage. In these circumstances, the marriage should be sustained and nothing should be allowed which could affect the position. Even otherwise, in light of the observations made above, when the impugned FIR is taken at its face value, no (prima facie offence is culled out as alleged under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC in facts and circumstances arising out of this application and even to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing CR No. I-65 of 2006 registered with Bhiloda Police Station, District Sabarkantha filed against the present applicant for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Ad-interim relief stands vacated.