Sohel Khan @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

This court yesterday, on 31.07.2018, had passed the following order:-

“Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.118/2018, registered at Police Station Nahargarh, Jaipur

City (North) for offence under Section 363 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the victim (name withheld to protect her identity), when minor had herself left the house of her

parents and after obtaining majority has come to stay with the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the victim and the petitioner intend to perform

marriage, but there is an imminent danger that upon knowing the whereabouts of victim, she may be liquidated.

In view of prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court in pre-lunch session requested Shri Prakash Thakuriya, learned Public

Prosecutor, to call Investigating Officer in this court. In pusuance of said order, Shri Rajesh Kumar Meel, Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Jaipur (North) is present in court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce the victim before Shri Rajesh Kumar Meel, Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Jaipur (North). Shri Rajesh Kumar Meel shall produce the victim in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan tomorrow on

01.08.2018 at 10.30 AM. Under the directions of this court, upon identification of the victim, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan shall

record statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Copy of said statement shall be handed over to the Investigating Officer for further

production in this court alongwith the victim.

List tomorrow on 01.08.2018 at 2.00 PM.

A copy of this order under the seal and signature of Court Master be handed over to Shri Prakash Thakuriya, learned Public Prosecutor, for onward

transmission and compliance.â€​

In pursuance of above said order, statement of the victim (name withheld to protect her identity) has been recorded by the Court of Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan. The statement so recorded, for ready reference, is reproduced below:-

“uksV %& xokg ls iwNk x;k fd ml ij fdlh dk ncko rks ugha gS\ ds mRrj esa xokg us dgk fd ml ij fdlh dk Hkh ncko ugha gS rFkk og viuh ethZ

¼bPNk½ ls c;ku ns jgh gSA eSa czg~eiqjh t;iqj esa ejs s ekrk&firk ds lkFk jgrh FkhA ge pkj HkkbZ cfgu gSA ejs s rhu HkkbZ gSA nks cM+s gS

o ,d ejs s ls NksVk gA eSus jktdh; lh- lS- Ldwy czg~eiqjh ls o""kZ 2018 esa XII class ikl dh gSA lksfgy [kku ejs k iM+kSlh gSA tks isfVax dk dke djrk

gSA esjh lksfgy [kku ls 7&8 lky ls nksLrh gSA esjs ekrk&firk esjh 'kknh fdlh vksj yM+ds ls djuk pkgrs Fks tcfd eSa lksfgy ls 'kknh djuk pkgrh FkhA

fnuakd 24@5@18 dh ckr gSA jkf= dks 1&1 1@2 cts eSa ?kj ls fudy dj esjh fe= usgk ds ikl tks/kiqj pyh xbZA D;ksafd eq>s esjs eEeh&ikik lksfgy ls

'kknh djus ls euk djrs Fks tcfd eSa lksfgy ls gh 'kknh djuk pkgrh FkhA eSa usgk ds lkFk 11 tqykbZ rd b/kj&m/kj ?kwerh jghA 11 tqykbZ dks eSa

tks/kiqj ls fnYyh pyh xbZA lksfgy dks eSaus Qksu djds fnYyh cqyk;kA fQj eSa fnYyh ls gh ukgjxHksts fd eSa viuh ethZ ls xbZ gWA lksfgy ds ?kjokyksa dks ijs'kku er djukA eSa lksfgy ls 'kknh djuk pkgrh gWw rFkk mlh ds lkFk jguk pkgrh gWwA

esjs firkth us >wBk eqdnek djok;k gSA esjh tUefrfFk 8-7-2000 gSA vc eSa 18 o""kZ dh gks pqdh gWwA ejs s ?kjokys eq>s lksfgy ls 'kknh ugha djus

ns jgs gSA eq>s dksbZ Hkh Hkxkdj ugha ys x;kA eSa viuh ethZ ls xbZ FkhA esjs lkFk fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ ?kVuk ugha gqbZA eq>s vkSj dqN Hkh

ugha dguk gSA

uksV %& xokg dks c;ku ik;s x;sA xokg us c;ku lqu le>dj lgh gksuk Lohdkj dj vius gLrk{kj fd;sA

vkj0vks0 ,.M+ ,0lh0

eq[; egkuxj eftLVsªV t;iqj egkuxj] t;iqjAâ€​

Shri Rajesh Kumar Meel, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (North), Investigating Officer, who is present in court, has stated that

date of birth of the victim is 08.07.2000.

Shri Anil Upman, learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2, has stated that when victim left her house, she was less than 18 years of age and

hence, she was enticed and taken away from the custody of lawful guardian.

A perusal of statement of the victim recorded by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan reveals that on 24.5.2018 she herself left the

house and had gone to the house of her friend. She contacted the petitioner only after 11th July when she had attained the age of majority.

Victim is present in court. She has stated in court that she intend to perform marriage with Sohel Khan, petitioner.

Two issues arise for consideration of this court; firstly, whether the petitioner had induced or taken away the victim from lawful custody of the

guardian and secondly, whether as on today having attained the age of more than 18 years, victim can be sent back to stay with her parents.

The Supreme Court in S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942 has specifically stated that if a minor herself leave the house or

accompany the accused, it cannot be said that minor has been enticed away from the company of lawful guardian.

Therefore, taking into consideration the law laid in the case of S. Vardarajan (supra) and statement of the victim made before Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and before this court today, the impugned FIR is quashed alongwith all subsequent

proceedings.

Victim is more than 18 years of age. Hence, she is free to reside wherever she so wishes or with whom she so intend to reside.

Shri Rajesh Kumar Meel, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (North) is directed to accompany the victim to Police Station Nahargarh,

Jaipur City (North) and after recording entry in daily diary register, Investigating Officer shall escort the victim to the place where she intend to reside.

Shri Rajesh Kumar Meel being Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (North) is further directed to ensure necessary vigil that no harm is

caused to the victim till he perceive threat to the life of the victim.

In view of above, present petition stands disposed of.