Heard learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the applicants, learned APP Mr. Nanavati for opponent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Samir Dave for opponent No.2.
2. The FIR has been lodged against applicant No.1 by opponent No.2 with Garbada Police Station for an offence punishable under Sections 365, 366, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. By virtue of an order passed on 13.11.2006 by this Court, the proceedings against applicant No.1 have not proceeded further. However, the police has recorded statement of the alleged prosecutrix
- opponent No.2 on 16.02.2005.
4. Looking to the FIR, it indicates that the first informant has no knowledge as to how the girl became not traceable. There are no specific allegations against applicant No.1 in the FIR.
5. Contrary to the FIR, if the statement recorded by the police during the course of investigation on 16.02.2005 of opponent No.2 - prosecutrix is seen, it is clear that she had attained the age of majority before the date of the incident. It is also clear that there is no element of kidnapping or abduction made out against applicant No.1. Similarly, the prosecutrix states that she got marriage with applicant No.1 willingly and staying with him as his wife and enjoying conjugal rights. As such, none of the offences indicated in the FIR or as such, no other offence can be said to have been made out against either applicant No.1 or applicant No.2. The certificate of registration of marriage duly issued by Sub Registrar of Marriages, Dahod on 04.01.2005, is also produced.
6. In light of above fact situation, this Court is of the view that no case is made out against applicants for offences punishable under Sections 365, 366, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence registered against applicants vide CR-I No.14 of 2005 with Garbada Police Station does not survive, so far as the applicants are concerned. The FIR qua the applicants, therefore, deserves to be quashed and same is quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[A.L.
Dave, J.] #MH Dave Top